Sundwall et al v. Kelleher et al, No. 1:2006cv01191 - Document 8 (N.D.N.Y 2006)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO and dismissing complaint . Signed by Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 10/10/06. (wjg, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sundwall et al v. Kelleher et al Case 1:06-cv-01191-LEK-DRH Doc. 8 Document 8 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERIC SUNDWALL; ROBERT PERKOWSKI; ANGELO SCOTT; THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF THE NEW YORK STATE, Plaintiff, -against- 1:06-CV-1191 (LEK/DRH) NEIL W. KELLEHER, each individually and in their capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections; DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, each individually and in their capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections; EVELYN J. AQUILA, each individually and in their capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections; HELENA MOSES DONOHUE, each individually and in their capacities as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties, and the relevant law (especially Stoppenbach v. Sweeney, 98 N.Y.2d 431 (2002); Stark v. Kelleher, 820 N.Y.S.2d 193 (2006), leave to appeal denied, 7 N.Y.3d 707; Zobel v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 678 N.Y.S.2d 794 (3d Dep t 1998); and Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding § 6-140, with similar provisions to § 6-130, to be constitutional)), and has heard oral argument on the Order to Show Cause, and finds that Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient facts or law to demonstrate that there is a likelihood of their success on the merits. Indeed, among other things, the requirements of the New 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-01191-LEK-DRH Document 8 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 2 York Election Law (§ 6-130) in this matter are not unduly burdensome or restrictive, and are necessary for the assurance of a fair, honest, and orderly election cycle. Furthermore, the existence of a computerized voter registration database, maintained by the New York State Board of Elections, does not itself require a finding that the provisions of the challenged law are burdensome or unconstitutional. Therefore, Plaintiffs requests for injunctive and equitable relief are denied, Plaintiffs Motion is denied, and Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 10, 2006 Albany, New York 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
