WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 11218

Deems certain nominating or designating petitions to be permeated with fraud and invalidating the filings made by a contested candidate

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Matt Slater

The bill would deem certain nominating or designating petitions fraudulent and invalidate filings by contested candidates, affecting ballot access.

REFERRED TO ELECTION LAW
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 11218

Summary of Bill A 11218 (2025-2026, New York)

Overview

  • Title: Deems certain nominating or designating petitions to be permeated with fraud and invalidating the filings made by a contested candidate
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Jurisdiction: New York
  • Status: Referred to Election Law on May 1, 2026
  • Sponsor: Co-sponsor Matt Slater

Purpose and Intent

The bill appears to address the integrity of nominating and designating petitions used to place candidates on ballots. Its stated aim is to treat certain petitions as having fraud permeating them, which would lead to invalidation of filings associated with a candidate who is the subject of a petition contest. In effect, the measure targets petitions that are alleged or deemed to be fraudulent to prevent contested candidates from being on the ballot.

Key Provisions (as described by the title; full text would provide precise language)

  • Definition of Fraud in Petitions: The bill would deem certain nominating or designating petitions to be permeated with fraud. This suggests a presumption or finding that some petitions meet criteria for fraudulent activity.
  • Invalidation of Filings: Filings made by a candidate who is contested, based on the deemed fraudulent petitions, would be invalidated. This could prevent the candidate from appearing on the ballot or from continuing to pursue petitions and filings.
  • Trigger for Action: The mechanism by which a petition is deemed fraudulent—whether by specific irregularities, orders, findings, or thresholds—would be defined in the bill. The summary indicates a procedural route to invalidate associated filings.
  • Scope of Petition Types: The bill references “nominating or designating petitions,” which cover multiple routes candidates use to qualify for the ballot (e.g., party nomination petitions or independent designation petitions).

Who Would Be Affected

  • Candidates: Contested candidates whose petitions are deemed fraudulent would have their filings invalidated, potentially removing them from the ballot.
  • Petition Circulators and Sponsors: Individuals or committees responsible for circulating or sponsoring the challenged petitions could be implicated.
  • Electoral and Ballot Access Processes: State and local election officials responsible for certifying petitions and administering elections would implement and enforce the provisions.
  • Voters and Parties: Voters seeking to support a candidate via petition and political parties relying on nominating procedures could experience changes in ballot access outcomes and associated timelines.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Referral: The bill was referred to the Election Law committee on May 1, 2026, indicating it will undergo committee review, potential amendments, and hearings before any floor consideration.
  • Effective Date: The summary does not specify an effective date; the bill’s text would indicate when provisions take effect (e.g., upon enactment, or a future date).
  • Enforcement: The bill would establish enforcement mechanisms for determining fraud in petitions and for invalidating filings, potentially including notice requirements, opportunities to cure, or judicial review provisions (as defined in the full text).

Practical Implications

  • The bill would heighten scrutiny of petition-based ballot access and introduce a framework whereby petitions deemed fraudulent automatically undermine associated candidate filings.
  • It could alter strategic considerations for candidates and campaigns in how they pursue ballot access, including petition design, circulation practices, and verification processes.
  • Potential concerns include due-process considerations for candidates and petition sponsors, and whether the criteria for deeming fraud are objective, transparent, and consistently applied.

Note: The summary reflects the information available from the bill’s title and action history. The full text would provide precise definitions, standards for fraud, procedural steps, remedies, and any appeals processes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.