"Carmella and Omar needed 500 signatures. They collected more than 1,300. But they're running against Kenesha Traynham-Cooper and Henry Butler, incumbents and allies of the current party leader. So the party challenged every signature, claiming they didn't match the records. The goal was simple: knock them off the ballot and deny Bed-Stuy voters a real choice in June, no matter the legal costs or the time wasted."
"Over days, referees compared petition signatures against photocopies - generally years-old signatures from when voters first registered. If two signatures didn't look identical at a glance, the signature was disqualified. Referees rarely do this work, receive no formal training, and know the exercise is as much guesswork as judgment. I watched referees strike a 79-year-old's signature because it didn't match from 1986."
"My own signature was challenged. Because I collected signatures, invalidating mine would have thrown out every petition I gathered. I was eventually called to testify in court. While her colleagues were in Albany negotiating the budget, Party Chair Rodneyse Bichotte H"
Brooklyn voters faced ballot access suppression through challenges to petition signatures. Candidates Carmella Charrington and Omar Hardy collected more than 1,300 signatures to qualify for the primary, exceeding the 500-signature requirement. The Brooklyn Democratic Party challenged every signature, claiming they did not match voter records, aiming to knock them off the ballot and deny Bed-Stuy voters a real choice. Referees compared signatures against photocopies of older registration signatures, often years old. Signatures were disqualified if they did not appear identical at a glance. Referees lacked formal training and treated the process as judgment rather than verification. A 79-year-old’s signature was rejected for not matching from 1986, and the author’s signature was also challenged.
Read at New York Daily News
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]