SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION - THIRD DEPARTMENT

-x

In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, Movant, Appellant, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County "EAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of
Plster County, and

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE & STAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY INDEX #2012-887

The motion brought on by this order to show cause shall not be orally argued unless counsel are notified to the contrary by the Clerk of the Court.

Ae Sheriffs Department of Ulster County

GREGORY R. SEELY, sheriff of

greene County, and Sheriffs Department of Greene County

CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC D'AGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District Respondents, Respondents, Respondents For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102, 16-106, 16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of all ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the public office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District, in the County of Greene, Montgomery, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set forth in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioner(s) under Articles Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Law and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16-100 of the Election Law, declaring Petitioner, Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondents Boards of Election.
x

Upon the affirmation of John CiampolL Esq, the Order of the Supreme Court, TOMLINSON, I., dated December / V ,'2012, and entered with the clerk on December 10, 2Q12, let the Respondents herein SHOW CAUSE before this Appellate. Division on of \)Kf^2Q-[2^SLt the APPELLATE DIVISION COURTHOUSE,

Justice Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, [all motions are returnable on papers, only] why an order of this court should not issue:

5
1. Staying the Ordetfof the Supreme Court, Montgomery County, Tomlinson, T _ hmidcd down on December , 2012, and entered with the clerk on

December 10, 2012, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal -f i

., ?
2. Staying the OKlejof the Supreme Court, Montgomery County, Tbsnlinson, J., handed down on December ,2012, and enter&4 with the clerk on"

Deceinber 10, 2012, pending tneShearing and deternimationb^the motion for leave to aj5&eal in this matter (shoulobfl^ be determined to be necessary), and . Ordering the preservation of the ballots in the 46m Senate District pending

I '. and
4. Ordering an expedited appeal of the subject order, and granting a preference to this matter pursuant to Section 16-116 Election Law, and 5. Such other, further and different relief as this Appellate Division may determine to be just and proper in the premises, and SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of the within motion, that the Orders aa^Ufcg*Si!ft of the Supreme Court, Tomlinson, J., appealed from by movant erein is hereby and shall be STAYED in all respects, and it is further ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of the within motion Respondent Boards of Elections shall not burst and canvass any ballot determined to be valid by the Supreme Court, Tomlinson, J., and it is

ORDERED, that the Movant herein shall cause these papers to be filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Division, and shall pay the requisite fees to the Clerk, and it is further ORDERED, that the Movant shall'cause a copy of this order, and the papers upon which it was granted to be served upon the parties to this appeal by electronic (V transmission to counsel for the respective parties on or before the \/^ day of December, 2012,-^r-ataaafc**^, by facsimile transmission or personal delivery to the law offices of the counsel for the respective parties to this appeal on or before the \ day of December, 2012, and that such service shall be deemed to be good and sufficient sendee thereof. DATED: December 10, 2012

Justice of the Appellate Division WILLIAM E. MCCARTHY, J.S.C.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY x In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, Movant, Appellant, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERJIAKCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of AFFIRMATION INDEX # 2012-887

Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC DA.GOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County CECILIA F.TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District Respondents, Respondents, Respondents For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102, 16-106, 16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of all ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the public office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District in the County of Greene, Montgomery, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set forth in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioner(s) under Articles Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Law and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16-100 of the Election Law, declaring Petitioner, Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondents Boards of Election.

John Ciampoli, an attorney duly admitted to the practise of Law before the Courts of the State of New York does hereby affirm under the penalties of perjury as follows:

1. He appears herein of counsel to David L. Lewis, Esq., who is the attorney of record for Petitioner.herein. He is fully familiar with the facts set forth in this affirmation. 2. This proceeding was venued in Montgomery County, and has been heard by Hon. Guy Tomlinson, A.J.S.C..

3. The orders of the Supreme Court, below, as amended by said Court, have been appealed to this Court EXHIBIT A. 4. This matter is a proceeding commenced under the terms of the Election Law, and as such is entitled to a statutory preference over all matters appearing on the docket of this Court pursuant to the terms of Election Law Section 16-116. STATUS OF THE CANVASS & COURT REVIEW OF BOARD OF ELECTIONS DETERMINATIONS 5. This matter relates to the Canvass and Recanvass of ballots cast in the 2012 General Election for the public office of Member of the New York State Senate, 46th Senate District in the Counties of Montgomery, Schenectady, Albany, Greene and Ulster. 6. This race was and remains exceedingly close. 7. Unofficial election night reports had the candidates separated by approximately 139 votes in favor of Respondent Tkaczyk. 8. Immediately after the election counsel for Petitioner/ Movant, Amedore, obtained an order to show cause from the Supreme Court. EXHIBIT B. 9. The order signed on Election Night provided for Court jurisdiction over the canvass and review of the results of the Board of Elections' determinations on individual ballots and ballot envelopes, together with the correction of the canvass of returns in this election. 10. Notably, the Court extended the preservation order to cover all objections (and determinations thereon) by both candidates (petitioner and respondent). 11. As aresultoftherecanvass of the voting machines, conducted under the Court's supervision, Petitioner Amedore was ahead by approximately 54 votes. 12. The canvass of paper ballots, including absentee ballots, military ballots, special ballots, un-scanned emergency ballots and affidavit ballots commenced, pursuant to a scheduling

order of the Supreme Court, at the offices of the Boards of Elections in Albany, Montgomery, Schenectady, Greene and finally in Ulster. 13. At this point the canvass of ballots has concluded with Petitioner Amedore ahead by 111 votes. 14. The hearing before the Supreme Court commenced December 3r and proceeded on the subsequent days. 15. At this point in the proceedings, the Supreme Court has concluded its review of the ballots in Albany, Schenectady, Montgomery and almost of Greene Counties ballots. The Court will hear testimony on six remaining Greene County Ballots on Monday December 10, 2012. Two referees will hear matters relating to the ballots in Ulster County beginning on Monday, December 10, 2012. 16. It is expected that proceedings will conclude and a final order will issue by Tuesday December 11, 2012. 17. In the course of its rulings the Supreme Court overruled the objections of both the Petitioner and Respondent to various ballot envelopes. 18. By its order(s), over Petitioner's objections, the Supreme Court has directed the appropriate Respondent Board of Elections to burst the ballot envelope, canvass the ballot therein and adjust the canvass accordingly, commencing on Tuesday December 11, 2012.. 19. Specifically, the Court issued an Order to the Schenectady County Board of Elections on December 4th, to the Montgomery County Board of Elections on December 5th, to the Albany County Board of Elections on December 5th, and then issued an order

supplementing and amending all previous orders to all Respondent Boards of Elections on December 7, 2012 (said Order having all prior Orders attached thereto). 20. The Court's orders to the Boards, over Petitioner's objection, setting forth a method for canvassing such ballots. These orders essentially embrace the "O'Keefe Method" for canvassing ballots first set forth in O'Keefe v. Gentile, 1 Misc.Sd 151 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co., 2003). 21. In that case, the Board of Elections in the City of New York had contended that the Court did not have the right to order the preservation of ballots for its review. The Board maintained that it had a statutory command to immediately burst the envelope, remove the ballot, comingle it with all other ballots and then canvass the ballot. The Board relied upon Matter of People for Ferrer. 286 AD2d 783 (2nd Dept, 2001) and Election Law Section 9 - 209 (2)(d) asserting that that Court had no authority to adjust the statutory canvassing procedure. 22. In an attempt to accommodate the Board, the Court devised a complex, risk prone, and error prone system of bursting ballot envelopes, removing and then photocopying the ballot (and as proposed here marking the ballot / copy so it can be traced back directly to a named voter by that voter's name and ballot envelope); returning the copy to the envelope, resealing the envelope and then canvassing the ballot. 23. This process adopted by the Court below, anticipates that any appellate ruling can be tracked and identified with a particular ballot, and if there is a reversal, a particular person's ballot can be removed from the count by going back to their envelope and determining for whom they voted.

24. The Appellate Division, Second Department found this method acceptable in a Kings County Primary Election, in King v. Smith, 308 A.D.2d 553 (2nd Dept, 2003). That case was an appeal in which the Board of Elections in the City of New York attempted to eliminate the "O'Keefe Method" and make all its determinations unreviewable by the Supreme Court via an application of People for Ferrer, supra. 25. Based upon reported authority, this methodology has been employed only in New York City, due to the position that the local Board of Elections has taken, seeking to prevent the Courts from preserving ballots for review as has been done across the state for years. 26. The "O'Keefe Method" has not been adopted by any other jurisdiction, or any of the other Appellate Divisions, in the State of New York. It has never been reviewed and approved by the Court of Appeals. 27. The Court below believing that this method would speed the count and allow for a final canvass in other races to be done in a shorter timeframe issued its orders to have the ballots "O'Keefe-ed". 28. We respectfully disagree with the Court's determination with regard to timing. The introduction of anew envelope opening, removal, copying, replacement and sealing process seems to the appellant to be more, not less, time consuming. 29. In fact, this methodology was employed in the recent special Election for State Senate hi Kings County. The "O'Keefe Method" contributed to delaying the certification of results and seating of a new State Senator from March until June. 30. Additionally counsel's direct experience with the O'Keefe method has included instances where the Board of Elections have made grave errors including placing a blank piece of paper in a ballot envelope instead of the ballot because the duplicating

methodology produced at least one item copied on the wrong side of the page rendering a ballot a nullity by the Board creating a blank vote where one had been before the Board personnel had touched the envelope and opened it. In another matter, the O'Keefe method produced an empty envelope and re sealed ballot envelope with no explanation of where the previously intact ballot had gone. With no alternative, the Court's order to deduct that vote from the total ended up impossible to comply with because the copy of the ballot inside had disappeared from the time of opening to the time of resealing. 31. The Montgomery County Supreme Court has spoken on the record of the pressures to certify the election results in the 46th Senate District. 32. The New York State Board of Elections has routinely faced the issue of an impoundment of objected to ballots as it affects other political subdivisions, EXHIBIT C. The State / Board has directed that local Boards certify the results on hand and then amend the certification. 33. Upon information and belief, with regard to this matter the New York State Board of Elections has advised the County Boards that they should certify such results and then amend the certification when disputed ballots are ultimately canvassed. 34. Further, the compelling interest here is that of the voters. The Constitution commands that the voters be accorded a secret ballot. The relevant passage states: "All elections by the citizens, except for such town officers as may by law be directed to be otherwise chosen, shall be by ballot., or by such other method as may be prescribed by law, provided that secrecy in voting be preserved"., Constitution, Article II, Section 7. 35. The Court below admitted on the record (transcripts have been ordered) that the identity of the voters will necessarily be compromised.

36. In fact Respondent Candidate's Counsel conceded, "... my personal legal opinion is that the O'Keefe method is not authorized by the Supreme Court by case law or statute ..." EXHIBIT D, Transcript p. 12. Counsel continued to comment on the Supreme Court's application of O'Keefe, supra, here, "The Second Department did not pass on the process that is being proposed here. *** I mean, it's one thing to bring it into the Supreme Court from the Boards. It's another thing to create a whole new mechanism that no Court has ever Looked at", Transcript, p 23 - 24. [We note here that no county actually used the O'Keefe Method in this Senate District] 37. None of the Boards of Elections in the instant matter have opposed the Court's original preservation order set forth in the Order to Show Cause. In contrast in King v. Smith. supra, or O'Keefe v. Gentile, supra., the Board of Election in the City of New York actively opposed any preservation order of the Supreme Court on the basis of their unique theory that denies the jurisdiction of the Court to review individual ballots. 38. The result of the Montgomery Court's orders will be that the tallies of the votes, including illegal and improper voted ballots, in this race alone will be announced, but will be inherently unreliable because the ensuing appellate process may likely exclude or include other ballots and will be forced to manipulate the tallies in order to reflect any changes in the validity of ballots. 39. This would result in fluctuating tallies during the course of litigation and appeals. The public's confidence in the system would be undermined. The Courts would be cast in the position of adding and deducting votes from the totals, rather than deciding legal issues to be applied to both sides and all voters uniformly.

40. The continually adjusting of the tally and the ever changing tallies, all forced by no necessity, will create public confusion and distrust of the entire process, including the judicial process for no tangible benefit. 41. What has happened here is that the Supreme Court has reversed its own order which assured preservation of the ballot envelopes, and assured voter confidentiality. The original order, which is quite conventional and routine in the practice of Election Law, was agreed or acquiesced to by all parties. 42. As observed by Respondent Candidate's counsel this change to the original preservation order is a whole new process that has no precedent or authority in the law EXHIBIT D, p. 24. 43. The Board of Elections has a statutory duty to canvass the ballots and file tabulated statements of the voting results Election Law 9~200[1], and such duty cannot be abdicated, see, Matter of Larsen v. Canary. 107 A.D.2d 809, at 811, 484 N.Y.S.2d 645, affd for the reasons stated below, 65 N.Y.2d 634, 491 N.Y.S.2d 159, 480 N.E.2d 747). 44. It is anticipated that there will be an appeal from the Supreme Court's final Order by either, or both, of the Petitioner and Respondent Candidates. There are a number of issues that continue to mature for appellate review as the Court concludes its hearings. 45. One issue, for instance, relies upon clear case law, mandating that the Board of Elections and the Courts strictly enforce the statutory requirements for affidavit ballots. 46. In Kolb v. Cassella, 270 A.D.2d 964 (4th Dept, 2000) the Appellate Division Fourth Department, held that, "... the [Supreme] Court erred in determining that the ballot of a voter from Livingston County may be counted. That voter failed to fill out the affidavit

ballot envelope with statutorily required information (see, Election Law, Sec. 8302[3](e){ii]. 47. Here, numerous affidavit ballots have been objected to where the statutorily required information has been omitted by the voter, or the information required by the statute has been found to be untrue. 48. It is axiomatic that a voter should not have his vote counted, where the affidavit used to procure the ballot fails to meet statutory requirements, or is actually a false statement. 49. Another major issue before the Board related to the failure of the voters to include statutorily required information on absentee ballot applications. 50. The Election Law dictates the information which the voter is required to place on his/her application. Even though the application form was simplified by recent legislation, it still requires the voter to specify the election for which an abdentee is requested and the dates of absence. 51. It has been held that the failure to place this information on the application is not a ministerial act of the Board of Elections, rather it is ".. .a fatal omission by the voter filling out the application". Weber v. Gamache, Index No. 8059/2007 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Co., 2007), see also, Boxer v. Dutchess Co. Bd. Of Elections. NYLJ, Jan 19, 2000} at p. 32. 52. The Courts do not have equitable powers to vary the statutory mandates and make exceptions to the rule, see, Delgado v. Sunderland. 97 N.Y.2d 420 (2002). 53. Another issue affecting several'ballots to come before the Supreme Court are the instances where the Board of Elections erroneously issued regular absentee ballots to citizens who reside overseas and who requested a Special Federal Ballot.

54. Special Federal Ballots do not carry local offices. It is the Petitioners' position below that the ballots should be counted, however, the Board may not canvass anything except Federal Offices on those ballots. 55. It is respectfully submitted that where the Court below has erroneously determined to count several of the ballots in contravention of these rules, that it is wrong to order the ballot opened and the vote canvassed, before there is a final statement on validity by the appellate courts. 56. Here the preservation order was put in place, and applied equally to both sides, before the paper count commenced. It has worked well. There is absolutely no reason for the Court to have altered the rules that are consistent with the Election Law, and the long accepted practice of Election Law hi this state. 57. It is respectfully submitted that the method adopted by the Supreme Court is wholly unnecessary, delays the process, and undermines public confidence in the results of the election. 58. See-saw totals, gaps between numbers reported on election night and a series of later recanvasses, only serve to undermine public confidence in the process and are patently prejudicial to the Petitioner, candidate Amedore who has actively participated in the process and followed the rules as set by the law and the Court's original Order to Show Cause. 59. Further the complex but ultimately self defeating efforts to preserve voter privacy by marking ballots with the same exhibit numbers as ballot envelopes and sealing the envelopes only after copying all the ballots in issue places an unreasonable demand on the resources and the economies of the Boards of Election, given that they must do all

this and fulfill all their other post election responsibilities. The creation of a needless Rube Goldberg contraption to hide which ballots are removed from which envelopes, followed by a marking of the envelopes to align with each individual ballot so those opened can be deducted, informs the Board and the parties of which voter cast what ballot either directly or indirectly. We must remember that proceedings before the Board are open to the press and the public. The Court's statement that all that is required is that one be a good card counter is not complete, because the ballots must be handled by Town or City and Ward and Election District thereby reducing the deck to a manageable and memorable size to count. 60. The opening and counting and then the removal of some and not necessarily all ballots render the entire process suspect to all those watching. 61. Further the adding and subtracting of ballots after opening undermines the secrecy of the ballot in violation of the State Constitution and the Election Law. No advantage is gained to either side by piecemeal recanvass adjustments. Instead everyone's confidence in the reliability of the results, the value of their individual ballot and the security of ballot are compromised for no reason except a rush to obtain results of races which are not currently in litigation. 62. This order, and the complex and unsure method it introduces into the election process will only prevent a speedy resolution of the canvass and the certification of his election in accordance with New York Law which requires certification by the end of the month. 63. It is respectfully submitted that your movants have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from illegal ballots being included in the canvass, and the compromise of the secret ballot. Further, a balancing of the equities which inures to

keeping this process moving forward under the rule that the Supreme Court had first put into place. 64. No application for the relief requested herein has been made to an}' Court. 65. These pleadings are hereby certified as being non frivolous under the rules of the Courts of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court sign the within order to show, cause, stay all bursting of ballots by the Court below, or as a result of the order,of the Court below appealed from, and further, order the preference on this Court's Calendar, and an expedited briefing schedule, order the continued preservation of the ballots and ballot envelopes as ordered by the Supreme Court in its Order to Show Cause at the inception of this matter, together with such other and further relief as .the Court may deem to be just and proper in the premises.

DATED: December 14, 2008 John Ciampoli, Esq. 677 Broadway, Suite 202 Albany, New York 12207 . ; "518,436 3865 / 5185271217 Gel: 518 522 3548

Exhibit A
(notice of appeal, decision appealed from, affidavit of service)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

_. ..... .-___-_*___, , ----V

In the Matter of

GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and
BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and

NOTICE OF APPEAL INDEX # 2012-887

The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC D'AGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District Respondents, For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102, 16-106, 16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of all ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the public office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District, in the County of Greene, Montgomery, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set forth in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioner(s) under Articles Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Law and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16-100 of the Election Law, declaring Petitioner, Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondents Boards of Election.

Sirs: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the above captioned Petitioner, does hereby appeal from the annexed orders of the Supreme Court, Montgomery County, Tomlinson, J., entered on December 10, 2012, and from each and every portion thereof which ruled against the said Petitioners, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, of the New York

State Supreme Court. DATED: December 10,2012 Yoursj etc.

L. Lelns^ Esq. Lewis & Fiore 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 (212) 285-2290

TO:

Frank Hoare, Esq. Attorney for Respondent Candidate Featherstonehaugh, Wiley & Clyne 99 Pine Street Albany, NY 12207 (518)436-0786 Kirnbeiiy Galvin, Esq. New York State Board of Elections 40 North Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Beatrice Havranek, Esq. Ulster County Attorney 244 Fair St. PO Box 1800 Kingston NY 12402 845 340 3685 Christopher Gardner, Esq. Schenectady County Attorney 620 State Street, 6th fl. Schenectady, New York 12305 5183884276 Thomas Marcelle, Esq. Albany County Attorney

112 State Street Room 1010 Albany NY 12207 5184477110 Carol D. Stevens, Esq. 411 Main Street Catskill, NY 12414 5187193540 Douglas Landon, Esq. Montgomery County Attorney 3 Market St. Amsterdam, NY 12010 518843 1300

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting the Board of Elections for Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting Th'e Board of Elections for Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD " Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and . The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County, and CECILIA F.-TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District, Respondents. SUPPLEMENTAL. and AMENDED ORDER (Albany County, Greene County Montgomery County Schenectady County Ulster County) INDEXNo. 2012-887

-1-

The Court having rendered ORDERS on December 4 and December 5, 2012 regarding the schedules in this matter for hearing objections and actions by the Boards of Elections in the counties of Schenectady, Montgomery and Albany, and the Court finding it necessary to supplement said Orders, and to further Order the schedule for said actions by the Boards of Election in GREENE COUNTY and ULSTER COUNTY; and all of said Orders being made pursuant to arguments made on the record opposing the opening of any ballots until after all

ballots have been ruled upon in the election districts of the five counties encompassing the 46th \e District, -and the Court having found the proceedin

expedited; it is hereby ORDERED that the procedures set forth in-the Orders of December 4, 2012 for Schenectady County and on December 5, 2012 for Montgomery County and Albany County (attached below) are modified, and otherwise continued, to require the ballot review process to begin on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Fonda, New York as follows: Schenectady County at 9:00 a.m., Albany County at 1:00 p.m and Montgomery County at 3:00 p.m., and immediately following the opening of the ballot envelopes and the hearing of the objections to the ballots by the said Boards of Election this Court will hear any and all objections raised to said ballots by or on behalf of the candidates and rule thereon, and the Boards of Elections shall promptly thereafter complete their duties in relation to all results in connection with the 2012 general election; and it is further ORDERED that the hearing of objections to envelops, etc. of GREENE COUNTY will commence on Friday, December 7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. as previously scheduled, and will continue as directed by this Court, until completion, to include, Saturday, December 8, 2012 and Monday -2-

December 10, 2012, if necessary; and the Board of Elections ballot review process will begin immediately following the completion of the trial of the envelops, etc., and this Court will thereafter immediately hear all objections raised to said ballots by or on behalf of the candidates and rule thereon, and the Board of Election shall thereafter promptly complete their duties in relation to all results in connection with the 2012 general election; and it is further ORDERED that the trial of envelopes, etc. in ULSTER County shall commence as previously scheduled on Monday, December 10, 2012 regardless of whether the trial of the Greene County matters has been completed, and said trial of the ULSTER COUNTY envelopes, etc. shall commence at the ULSTER COUNTY Board of Elections (or another appropriate location designated by the Court or the designated Court-Attorney Referees) at 9:00 a.m and shall be presided over by two or more Court-Attorney Referees, ordered to hear and report and/or hear and determine all issues concerning this matter; and the simultaneous trial before these CourtAttorney Referees shall continue from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Monday. December 10, 2012 and daily thereafter until completion, notwithstanding that the trial and proceedings taking place hi relation to the other counties involved in this matter asset forth above are continuing; and the Board of Elections ballot review process will begin immediately following the completion of the trial of the envelops, etc., and the Court-Attorney Referees will thereafter immediately hear any objections raised to said ballots by or on behalf of the candidates and rule/report thereon, and the Board of Elections shall promptly complete its duties thereafter in relation to all results in connection with the 2012 general election; and it is further ORDERED that the ballots and objections and the materials previously marked and those that may be marked before this Court and those before the Court-Attorney Referees, be preserved
-3-

for judicial review, and if appropriate, appellate review, by aprocedure agreed upon by the Attorneys for the Candidates and the respective Boards of Elections and approved by this Court by further written order or directed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if none is sooner agreed to or otherwise ordered; it is further ORDERED that the procedure that will be used in all five counties as follows: The envelopes will be shuffled or mixed and placed in a container (box, folder, etc.) so that all voter identifying indications that appear on the envelopes (labels, voter names, etc.) may not be viewed, and they will be drawn randomly one at a time from the container and placed face down in another container (box, folder, etc.) so that each may be opened in a manner that will not reveal the identity of the voter. The ballot will be removed from the envelope and photocopied, and objections to the original ballot will be noted on the photocopy of the said ballot. Upon the completion of review and recording of any and all objections, then and only .then will the photocopy be marked using the same identifying number placed on the envelope for the ballot in this Court proceeding (example, in Greene County, G-l; in Ulster County U-l on the envelope), with the Attorneys for the Candidates confirming the correct marking, and the now marked and identified ballot photocopy with objections will be placed inside the envelope and resealed, and only then will the next envelope be randomly pulled, and this procedure will continue until all envelopes ordered to be opened and processed have been so opened and processed; To the extent possible and appropriate, the ballots or ballot questions (propositions, etc.) may be voted or tallied in relation to all election races and or issues determined to be proper pursuant to the Board's official duties in accordance with all applicable law and rules and any relevant Order of any other court of competent jurisdiction, if there be any, except that
-4-

exceptions/objections made to the ballots related to the 46th Senate District election will be subject to further order of this court;, and this process shall take place as set forth in the above paragraphs, so that the Court and the Court-Attorney Referees may thereafter promptly rule upon ballot objections after each respective Board's canvassing of the ballots. SO'ORDERED. Signed on December 7, 2012 at Fonda, New York

HON. GUY P. TOMLINSON Acting Justice of Supreme Court ENTER

-5-

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

In the Matter of

\ i vv.-,/,{/( i i) X.->< ; ;/fr^

Ir

GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR.,

Petitioner, ORDER

-against-

'

INDEXNo. 2012-887

GREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting
The New York State Board of Elections; and

JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting the Board of Elections for Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TUR.CO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections
for Greene County, and

MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI

Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections

for Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting .The Board of Elections for Schenectady County, and ' MICHAEL J.AMATO, Sheriff of ' Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and . The Sheriff's Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and
The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County, and CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District, Respondents.

-I-

The Court having heard argument on the procedure for review of the Board of Elections conduct of the canvassing and tabulation of the 46th Senate District election results; and upon consideration of the arguments before the Court; Now, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that those ballots, envelopes and Affidavits which this Court has authorized and ordered to be processed, be opened and processed by the SCHENECTAD Y County Board of Elections .in a manner that will allow the candidates' to make' any legally cognizable objection they may have in relation to the 46th Senate District election; and
it is

'

ORDERED that the ballots and objections and the materials previously marked before this Court be preserved for judicial revie'w, and if appropriate, appellate review, by a procedure agreed upon by the Attorneys and the Board of Elections and approved by this Court or directed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if none is sooner agreed to or otherwise ordered; it is further ORDERED that the procedure that will be used is as follows: ' The envelopes will be shuffled or mixed and placed in a container (box, folder, etc.) so that all voter identifying indications that appear on the envelopes (labels, voter names, etc.) may not be viewed, and they will be drawn randomly one at a time from the container and placed face down in another container (box, folder, etc.) so that each may be opened in a manner that will not reveal the identity of the voter. The ballot will be removed from the envelope and photocopied, and objections to the original ballot will be noted on the photocopy of the said ballot. Upon the completion of review and recording of any and all objections, then and only then will the photocopy be marked using the same identifying number placed on the envelope for the ballot in

-2-

this Court proceeding (example, S-l on the envelope), with the Attorneys confirming the correct marking, and the now marked and identified ballot photocopy with objections will be placed inside the envelope and resealed, and only then will the next envelope be-randomly pulled out, and this procedure will continue until all envelopes ordered to be opened and processed have been so opened and processed; to the extent possible and appropriate, the ballots or ballot questions (propositions, etc.) may be voted or tallied in relation to all election races and or issues determined to be proper pursuant to the Board's official duties in accordance with any relevant' Order of any other court, if there be any, except that exceptions/objections made to the ballots related to the 46th Senate District election will be subject to further order of this court; and this , process may take place at the Montgomery .County Courthouse if the Board confirms it would be proper and convenient under all the circumstances, so that the Court may thereafter promptly rule upon ballot objections after the Board's canvassing of the ballots; and it is ORDERED and DIRECTED that the Schenectady County Board of Elections shall not commence this process until on or after Tuesday, December 1-1, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. or at such further time as the Court directs, to give counsel an opportunity to seek judicial review of this Court's actions prior to the opening of the envelopes, it being the intention of ths Court that all envelopes in this matter will have been tried and ruled upon by this Court prior to the opening of the ballots. Signed on December 4, 2012 at Fonda, New York

HON. GUY P. TOMLINSON Acting Justice of Supreme Court ENTER

i

-3-

u.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner; -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER,' JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN-AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M.'DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting the Board of Elections for Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting. The Board of Elections for Ulster County, and . THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Albany County, and . BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and . The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The S heriff s D ep artment o f Alb any C o unty DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County, and CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District, Respondents. / ] ] / -

ORDER i

/ \( /H^f&Vn^

o /

INDEX No. 2012-887

The Court having heard argument on the procedure for review of the Board of Elections conduct of the canvassing and tabulation of the 46th Senate District election results; and upon consideration of the arguments before the Court; Now, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that those ballots, envelopes and Affidavits which this Court has authorized and ordered to be processed, be opened and processed by the MONTGOMERY County Board of Elections in a manner that will allow the candidates to niake any legally,cognizable objection they may have in relation to the 46th Senate District election; and
it is .

ORDERED that the ballots' and obj ections and the materials previously marked before this Court be preserved for judicial review, and if appropriate, appellate review, by a procedure agreed upon by the Attorneys and the Board of Elections and approved by this Court or directed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if none is sooner agreed to or otherwise ordered; it is further ORDERED that the procedure that will be used is as follows; The envelopes will be shuffled or mixed and placed in a container (box, folder, etc.) so that all voter identifying indications that appear on the envelopes (labels, voter names, etc.) may not be viewed, and they will be drawn randomly one at a time from the container and placed face down in another container (box, folder, etc.) so that each may be opened in a manner that will not reveal the identity of the voter. The ballot will be removed from the envelope and photocopied, and objections to the'original ballot will be noted on the photocopy of the said ballot. Upon the completion of review and recording of any and all objections, then and only then will the photocopy be marked using the same identifying number placed on the envelope for the ballot in

this Court proceeding (example, M-l on the envelope), with the Attorneys confirming the correct marking, and the now marked and identified ballot photocopy with objections will be placed inside the envelope and resealed, and only then will the next envelope be randomly pulled out, and this procedure will continue until all envelopes ordered to be opened and processed have been so opened and processed; to the extent possible and appropriate, the ballots or ballot questions (propositions, etc.) may be voted or tallied in relation to ail election races and or issues determined to be proper pursuant to, the Board's official duties in accordance with any relevant Order of any other court, if there be anyy except that exceptions/objections made-to the ballots related to the 46th Senate District election will be subject to further order of this court; and this process may take place at the Montgomery County Courthouse if the Board confirms it would be proper and convenient under all the circumstances, so that the Court may thereafter promptly rule upon ballot objections after the-Board's canvassing of the ballots; and it is ORDERED and DIRECTED that the Iviohtgomery County Board of Elections shall-not commence this process until on or after Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. or at such further time as the Court directs, to give counsel an opportunity to seek judicial review of this Court's actions prior to the opening of the envelopes, it being the intention of ths Court that all envelopes in this matter will have been tried and ruled upon by this Court prior to the- opening of the ballots. Signed on December 5, 2012 at Fonda, New York

HON.'GUYP. TOMLINSON Acting Justice of Supreme Court ENTER

-3-

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY __

In the Matter of '

GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting the Board of Elections for Montgomery'County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. B.LEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Albany County, and BRIAN. QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections for Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J, AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VANBLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and -

/ -1 / / ORDER'/ fyl^W
V. '

/? L*

INDEX No. 2012-887

The Sheriff's Department of Greene County . CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriff s Department of Albany County DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady County, and CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District,

Respondents.

-1-

The Court having heard argument on the procedure for review of the Board.of Elections conduct of the canvassing and tabulation of the 46 th Senate District election results; and upon consideration of the arguments before the Court; Now, it is hereby ORDERED and DIRECTED that those ballots, envelopes and Affidavits'which this Court has authorized and ordered to be processed, be opened and processed by the ALBANY County Board of Elections in a manner that will allow the candidates to make any legally cognizable objection they may have in relation to the 46th Senate District election; and it is ORDERED that the ballots and objections and the materials previously marked before " this Court be preserved for judicial review, and if appropriate., appellate review, by a procedure agreed upon by the Attorneys and the Board of Elections and approved by this Court or directed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if none is sooner agreed to or otherwise ordered; it is further ORDERED- that the procedure that will be used is as follows: The envelopes will be shuffled or mixed and placed in a container (box, folder, etc.) so that all voter identifying indications that appear on the envelopes (labels, voter names, etc.) may not be viewed, and they will be drawn randomly one at a time from the container and placed face down in another container (box, folder, etc.) so that each may be opened in a manner that will not reveal the identify of the voter. The ballot will be removed from the envelope and photocopied, and objections to the original ballot will be noted on the photocopy of the said ballot. Upon the completion of review and recording of any and all objections, then and only then will the photocopy be marked using the same identifying number placed on the envelope for'the ballot in this Court proceeding (example, A-l on the envelope), with the Attorneys confirming the correct

marking, and the now marked and identified ballot photocopy with objections will be placed inside the envelope and-resealed, and only then will the next envelope be randomly pulled out, and this procedure will continue until all envelopes ordered to be opened and processed have been so opened and processed; to the extent possible and appropriate, the ballots or ballot questions (propositions, -etc.) may be voted or tallied in relation to all election races and or issues determined to be proper pursuant to the Board's official duties in accordance with any relevant Order of any other court, if there be any, except that exceptions/objections made to the ballots related to the 46th Senate District election will be subject to further- order of this court; and this process may take place at the Montgomery County Courthouse if the Board confirms it would be proper and convenient under all the circumstances, so that'the Court may thereafter promptly rule upon ballot objections after the Board's canvassing of the ballots; and it is ORDERED and DIRECTED that the Albany County Board of Elections shall not commence this process until on or after Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.rn. or at such further time as the Court directs, to give counsel an opportunity to seek judicial review of this Court's actions prior to the opening of the envelopes, it being the intention of ths Court that all envelopes in this matter will have been tried and ruled upon by this Court prior to the opening of the ballotsSigned on December 5,2012 at Fonda, New York

HON. GUY P. TOMLINSON Acting Justice of Supreme Court ENTER

Exhibit B
(Orderto Show Cause)

AT A TEEM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, ON THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 PRESENT. J.S.C.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY In the Marter of GEORGE A. AMEDOKE, JK Petitioner, -againstOKDEPv TO SHOW CAUSE AND RESTRAINING ORDER GREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAME M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County., and C. VICTOR'WORK and THOMAS K TURCO ComrnissionerSj constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster County, and IHOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDU3 Commissioners;, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County? and The Sheriff's Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriff's Department of Ulster County GREGORY R, SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriff's Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of INDEX #

VAIIS/NVHOH SaoiddO AiTT

T6LO >iS SIS

ETOS/iO/TT

Albany County, And The Sheriff's Department of Albany County DOMINICDAGOSOLNO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriff 5 Department of Schenectady County

CEQHAF.TKAGZYK;

Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District Respondents, For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102,16406,16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of aH ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the public office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District, in the County of Greene, Montgomery Albany} Schenectady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rale upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set fordb in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioners) under Articles Five, Sis, Seven, Eight, Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Law and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16-100 of the Election Law} declaring Petitioner) Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondents Boards of Election.
--1.

,_,

*l ^-M<>m.

,..*(_ -*.!-,-.

._..*_...-*.

U4-*._. ~~.tr

"V"

Upon die annexed petition of GEORGE A. AVEDORE, Jr., verified on the _ Day of November 2012, and upon all of the papers and proceedings heretofore had herein, it is hereby OKDEBEl), that Respondents herein show cause before an all purpose terra of this court held In and for the County of MONTGOMERY, at the Courthouse thereof more specifically, at the Courthouse at 5S Broaoway, Fonda New York, 12068 in MONTGOMERY County, 'Po-i oA*w/-*J?2 Avici" /""i i New ion?, it ^Qjn thefeMi,oon of the /-^pk Day of November, 2012, or as soon thereafter as counsel maybe hearc^ why an order of this court should not be made and entered pursuant to the provisions of Articles Fivej Sk, SeYen; Eight; Nine, Ten, Eleven and Sixteen of the Election. Law and Article 78 of the GP.L.R.: 1. Verifying the tallies of votes as tabulated by electronic voting equipment on election night, and as may include any updated tabulations by Respondents Board of Elections after the initial tallies were prepared. Such testing and verification shall include, but not be limited to, a test and a review of the voting equipment utilized, the software used to tabulate ballots, a comparison with the original source codes and software preserved pursuant to Election Law 7208 and related sections of law and the testing of the resident vote tabulation programming and

VAIIS/MVHOH saoiddo m

T6io ne STS ra

all related software, including any election management system, as -well as all security protocols to insure the integrity of the voting process; 2. Determining the validity of all ballots Cast on paper in the General Election for the office of State Senator for the 46th District and further determining the validity of all affidavit ballots, emergency ballots, absentee ballots, military balbts> special ballots and any other such ballots cast for the public office of STATE SENATOR, 46ih SENATE DISTRICT, 3. Ordering that the Respondents Boards of Elections take appropriate steps to assure that voters in certain election districts affected by any calamity, power f ailurej or other difficulty, have a full and fair opportunity to cast their votes, together with such other, further, and different relief as this court may find to be just and proper, 4. Ordering the Respondents, Boards of Elections and the Commissioners thereof, to certify the name of the Petitioner Candidate, GEORGE A. AMEDORE Jr., as elected to the public office of STATE SENATOR, 46th SENATE DISTRICT, at the General Election held therefor on the Sixth Day of November 2012, 5. Ordering "with regard to all scanned ballots, that the procedures mandated by Section 9-211 of the Election Law requiring an. audit of voter verifiable records in 3% of the election districts in each county when completed and thai the records of such, audit be provided to the Petitioner, 6. Orderingthe Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and "Ulster County Boards of Elections and the Commissioners thereof, to preserve and secure all ballots, machines and election material for the public office of STATE SENATOR, 46'^ SENATE DISTRICT^ at the General Election held therefore on the 6th day of November, 2012; 7. Ordering the joinder of such parties as are determined appropriate;

8. Ordering the testing and inspection of voting machines which have malfunctioned or been tampered with, and making appropriate findings of fact, orders preserving evidence, and adjustments to the canvass as maybe just and proper in the premises; 9. Ordering; that the canvass of the votes made by the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Counties Boards of Elections be corrected and adjusted, to reflect a proper tally of the votes for the said public office: 8. Granting Petitioner such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper; and it is further, ORDERED, that Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Cbunty Boards of Elections cause to be preserved inviolate and separate all voting materials, such as absentee ballots, applications for absentee ballots, special ballots and applications for such ballots, affidavit ballots and envelopes containing such bailees, special ballots, military

YAIIS/NYHOH SSDIdtfO MVT

T6iU fri SIS XW L V ' Z T Z T G Z / i O / T T

ballots, machine breakdown reports, mechanic or custodian logs, election day affidavits, election day court orders, poll books, ballot stubs, spoiled ballots, voided or defective ballots, unused ballots and all copies of close of polls reports, all printed and electronic records and vote tallies, for the public office and relative to the public office of State Senator 46th Senate District; preserve inviolate and separate the ballots for the office of State Senator for the 46th Senate District, from all others, and that such listed items be preserved; separated and held under a secw^j^ernrequiring bipartisan participation in order to access ^hrnajerial Jjy the us two jSo^systeni withj Commissioner of each party havingtij&KggsO^O-^ty OnelocE of the' -i-Atorajre facility in which election materials and ballots and other materials ^pending further order ~1V , , , . , , . , r i . , a<^jSoc4CTeZrjJ of this Court, unless released upon the stipulation o the parties hereto; and it xs rurtherjv. Albany, Schenectady and Ulster ntgomery; G OKDEKED, that Res ntr this order the ballots> County Boards of Elections 1 canvass sheets, all voting materials, such as absentee ballots, applications for absentee ballots, special ballots and applications for such ballots, affidavit ballots and envelopes containing such ballots, machine breakdown reports, mechanic or custodian logs, election day affidavits, election day court orders, poll books, ballot stubs, spoiled ballots, voided or defective ballots, unused ballots and all copies of close of polls reports, all printed and electronic records and vote tallies and other records all above listed which are the subject of this proceeding, and the deterrninations of the said Board of Elections upon any objections and challenges to voters and/or ballots and/or applications therefor, and any other papers or worksheets relating thereto, and it is further., ORDERED, that the Respondents; Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections each appoint a Board of Inspectors composed of two of the Commissioners of Elections from the subject county and/or any deputy commissioners of Respondent, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections (in each case, one of each political persuasion), for the purposes of conducting a canvass of all votes and or ballots for the election to the public Office of State Senator 46th Senate District; forthwith, said Board of Inspectors shall be empowered to hear and make a determination upon any and all objections to the canvassing of any and all ballots pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Election Law, and ir is further ORDERED, that any attorney or his employee representing petfeKjner be admitted to the place of canvass or recanvass of the votes in this election and be alloweorull participation in the administrative proceedings of the Boards of Elections held in relation thereto, without the need for production and filing of a poll watcher's certificate, and it is further, ), that each said Boards of Inspectors shall follow ordinary canvassing procedures as set forth in the statutes and case law and shall canvass each and every vote unanimously found to be valid and/or proper by said Boards of Inspectors, Any and all ballots unanimously found to be invalid and/or improper shall be laid aside and preserved by said each. Board and shall not be canvassed by Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady

SCO

VAIIS/NVHOH

iiTT

T6iO

8TS

STOS/IO/TT

and Ulster County Boards of Elections. The fact that a computerized scanning machine may have accepted and tallied a ballot shall not-create a presumption that said ballot is valid or complies with the statutes and case law of the State of New York and it is further. ORDERED, that said Inspectors shall preserve a record of all objections entered against the canvassing of any ballot, together with a record of the vote upon the objection thereon (sustained, overruled or split vote), and shall further preserve any ballot and supporting documentation upon a split vote of said Inspectors so that this Court may review same; however, in no instance shall any said Board of Inspectors compromise the secrecy of any voter's ballot by way of preserving an objection thereto in violation of Election Law 17-126 (1), (2) or (3); Article 2, Section 7 of the New York State Constitution and relevant provisions of Article 8 and Article 9 of the Election Law, and it is further ORDERED, that this Court herby invokes its powers under Article 16 of the Election. Law to preserve baDots, and the inherent power of the Court to review the determinations of the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections, and orders that upon the unanimous vote of the Board of Inspectors-to canvass any bailor objected to by the parties, said ballot shall be set aside and shall not be canvassed ONLY in the event the parties persist in the objection and requests same be set aside for this Court's review; and it is further, ORDERED, that in the interests of justice, the efficient administration of the law and judicial economy, the objection(s) of any party hereto to any ballot, ballot envelope, affidavit, application or documents relating to the ballots of the General Election held, on the sixth day of November 2012 for the subject public office of State Senator of the 46th Senate District are hereby ordered to be preserved until the time of the canvass and recanvass of such ballots, and the hearing before this Court, regardless of whether .three days have elapsed, and all such ballots and documents shall be preserved for the review of this Comt pursuant to the power conferred upon this Court by Election Law Section 16412; and k is further, ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Scheuectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections prepare all necessary records for the canvass of the votes in the 46th Senate District, forthwith, and. it is further, ib^C'*- 4-0 "lI O ) that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections shall produce for any party; upon request, all documents (or copies thereof) including, but not limited to, absentee, special and military ballot applications, voter registration records, ballot envelopes;, poll books, canvass sheets, machine breakdov/n reports, mechanics3 or custodians' logs, affidavits, election day court orders and other election- related documents without the need for a subpoena, prior to the canvass of ballots but not less than 48 hours prior to the commencement of the canvass of the ballots; and it is further, ORDERED, that the !Respondentss Montgomery, Greene, Albany Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections shall' provide the PJjsig6ner access to the signatures upon all
J

^ N ^

VA1IS/NVHOH

SIS

STOZ/iO/TT

documents including, but not limited to, ballot envelopes, voter registration records, absentee ballot applications, and poll books byway of the inspection of original documents and photocopies as maybe requested by party candidate. Any party shall treat such Information as confidential and may only use such information in connection with proceedings relating to the subject election; and it is further) ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections shall be free to conduct the recanvass of the votes in all other political subdivisions in the County of Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster according to their normal procedures, except as specified herein- and it is further, ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Count)-' Boards of Elections prepare all necessary records for the canvass of the votes in the subject political subdivision, including the registration records of voters casting paper ballots, absentee ballots, special and military ballot applications, poll book) and other related doraments, forthwith; and it is further,
***!

'; that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections each commence the canvass of all paper ballots in the 46tli Senate District upon at least 24 hour 'written noiice to counsel for the parries, but not earlier than the 20th Day of November 2012, because of the extension of time for the receipt of absentee ballots and issues concerning the validity of affidavit ballots occasioned by the hurricane disruption, or as soon thereafter as the ballots and supporting records can be made available, and upon a schedule to permit candidate parries to be able to have representatives at such canvasses in each of the five counties, and it is further, ORDERED, that the Respondents Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections shall cause the voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sucks* or flash drives , the electronic record of voting similar to USB pore devices, and ballot stubs whin the 46ih Senate District of the Counties of Montgomery Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster to be recalled to central storage locations, and that the Respondent Board shall coordinate the said recall of machines "with the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster "Bounties' Sheriff's Office and that such voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash drives , the electronic record of voting similar to USB ppit, devices, andbaUot stubs be secured ,in a facility that secm^d'i^facilitythat requires twoWferor access'to tne machines, with the , t '-t-n. rt f f" ^} O ^T ^i A /\k*v-Co Av # \ Mtcy-or eoio&iSatibfrto one of the two locks beii% in the sole possession of each of the Republican and Democratic commissioners (or his/her designee),so as to ensure the integrity of the machines and the ballots cast thereon, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greenes Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections shall assure that all paper ballotSj records and keys for voting machines, the voting machines, ballet boxes, canvass sheets, and ballots cast at elections, including, but not limited to, the computer printouts of election results, the voting machines,

VA'IIS/KVHGH gaOIddO A1YT

T8iO ne SIS

each of the wo digital and/or flash drives upon which the election returns are stored, election management system upon which the Respondent Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections, download and store the elecdon results, the ballot boxes and the actual paper ballots cast by the voters, the poll books, protective stub books, unused ballots, spoiled ballots, and all materials and records maintained by the inspectors of elections in each polling place, are secured and placed under dual key lock in a safe of die Respondent Counties1 Board of Elections or other1 secured space bipartisan action, to achieve access thereto; and ii is further>
I"~" *

ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Sheriff's Department for their respective counties, each impound and maintain protection of, and guard over the machines, the ballots, canvass sheets, all voting materials, such as absentee ballots, applications for absentee ballots, special ballots and applications for such ballots, affidavit ballots and envelopes containing such ballots, machine breakdown reports, mechanic or custodian logs, election day affidavits, election day court orders, poll, books, ballot stubs, spoiled ballots, voided or defective ballots, unused ballots and all copies of close of polls reports, all printed and electronic records and vote tallies and other records all above listed which are the subject of this proceeding, and the determinations of the said Board of Elections upon any objections and challenges to voters and/or ballots and/ or applications therefor, and any other papers or worksheets relating thereto, flash drives or sticks and scanners of the 46th Senate District, Counties of Montgomery Greene, Albany, Schenectadyand Ulster byassigning an Officer of each of the Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Scnenectady and Ulster County's Sheriff's Department to each and every lo cation at which voting machines and/or ballots are located on a 24 hour per day basis, or alternatively, at the option of each of the Sheriff's Department of Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectadyand Ulster County, machines maybe secured by sealing each of the said voting machines wth a tamper resistant seal as Soon as practicable, and it is further, GKDEKED that Respondent Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Election shall allow the parties hereto together with the Court of the: Court's designee, to inspect voting machines -wfch irregular returns and to report the findings of said inspection to the Court, and it is further , thai each of the Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectadyand Ulster County's Sheriff's Department shall assure that all paper baliotSj tabulated paper records of results, tapes and other records, flash drives or "sticks" and keys for voting machines the voting machines, machines, canvass sheets and ballots cast at elections, including but not limited to the computer print outs of election results, the voting machines, the USB flash drives upon ^hich the election returns are stored, the election management system upon which the Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Elections downloads and stores the election results, the ballot boxes and the actual paper ballots cast by the voters, the poll books, protective stub books and ail materials and records maintained by the inspectors of elections in

YAIIS/NVHOH S33IddO AIVT

TG-LQ fit 8TS TVd GV'-Zl STOS/iO/TT

each polling place; are secured and placed under 24 hour per day g

Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Board of Elections (or other secun requiring bipartisan action to achieve access thereto, or a safe or $e< enforcement, to which each of the Sheriffs of Montgomery, Green . Ulster County respectively or designee, respectively shall maintain, i of access. In each case there shall be maintained by the law enforc all persons accorded access, and it is further ORDERED, that the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Scheo County Boards of Elections shall, upon 24 hour "written notice to the Petition candidates, commence the recanvass of votes cast on voting machines, voting scanners, "sticks'1 or flash drives, the electronic record of voting similar to UI and ballot stubs once all voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash d electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices^ and ballot stubs have their storage places, and Respondents Boards of Elections shall cause no voti ballotSj scanners) "sticks" or flash drives, the electronic record of voting simi devices, and ballot stubs to be recanvassed -without the peSti^er's counsel 01 having the opportunity to be present. W-f C C $ >, that the Respondents, Montgomery, GreenSj Albany, Schen County Boards of Elections shall, cause a recanvass to proceed as follows; 1., all computerized printouts from the voting machtnes against the election retu machines' USB flash drives; 2. A reconciliation of the returns and images of t USB flash drives wich the paper ballots including a review of the ballots; 3. AJ the workings and programrning of die individual machines and the election rr as maybe demanded by Pet&afmervall of which shall proceed only with the r wfirCfci'ty' C poll Catchers, or expert examiners presbnt, !> ORDERED, that in the interests of justice, the'efficient administration oj V'rTiVT'V T X judicial economy, die objection^) of the Pe^soner hereto to any ballot, balky affidavit, application or documents relating to the ballots of the 2012 General subject public office of 46th Senate District are hereby ordered to be preservi the canvass and recanvass of such ballots, aad the healing before this Cc'Urtj; whether three days have elapsed., and all such ballots and documents shall be review of this Court pursuant to the power conferred upon this Court by Ele 16-112; and it is further, ORDERED, that in the event the canvass of ballots continues beyond th specified herein above, counsel for the parties hereto may adjourn same by si counsel shall inform the Court by telephone of same immediatelyupon agree the canvass may proceed -with all due speed; and it is further.

600

VA.1IS/NVHOH

ORDERED, that proof of service maybe filed wjtli the Courc on the return date specified herein; and it is further) ORDERED, that this Court finds venue properly placed b Montgomery County, and any related proceedings commenced by the Respondents hereto shall be made returnable in Montgomery County, and Sufficient reason appearing therefore, leave is hereby granted to the petitioners to submit on the date set for the hearing orthe trial of this matter additional witnesses, exhibits, proofs and other evidence as maybe necessary, and, Sufficient reason appearing therefore leave is hereby granted to the parties to amend their pleadings as maybe necessary and; Sufficient reason appearing therefor, within the petition to this Court; and by the presentation of counsel., leave is hereby granted to the Petitioner to purchase an Index Number and Request for Judicial Interventionj from the County Clerk and to file these papers within die period specified therefor by CPUR 305) not to be later than November ^"fK, 2012, and, Specifically, the Court notes that die instant application is made outside the ordinary hours of operation of the Court, and the Clerk's Office. It is hereby determined that the instant application is made on an emergency basis, and without immediate judicial intervention machines and ballots could be left unguarded and unsecured allowing for fraud and corruption of the election results. The Court determines that an immediate filing pursuant Section 304 CPLR is impossibkj and hereby authorizes a filing subsequent to the date of the signing as provided herein, This Court further determines that the security of election returns and me integrity of the voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash drives, the electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices, and ballot stubs and the ballots cast are paramount in this proceeding. Moreover, in an Elections proceeding notice to the parties is a paramount concern. Therefore, service of the within order to show cause and petition prior to the filing of same is specifically authorized by the Court under the emergency circumstances presented herein. The Court shall, however, permit the petitioner to re-serve same after the filing of the papers and purchase of an index number pursuant to Section 304 CPLR, and such service shall be made not later than November _l 20l2; I *- i(? *v\ Sufficient reason appearing therefor, it is further ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this court upon the within petiiion; the respondent Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Scheneaady and Ulster Board of Elections is hereby TEMPORARILY ENJOINED AND RESTRAJ_NEDFR^1__ .. .

OTOig

YAIIS/MVHOH

T6io pie STS xw 09:21

CANDIDATE DULY ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF

STATE SENATOR 46th SENATE DISTRICT, and it is further, ORDERED that ui the event the canvass of voting machines, paper ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash drives, the electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices> and ballot stubs ballots continues beyond the return date specified herein above., counsel for the parties hereto may adjourn same by stipulation, and counsel shall inform the Cburt by Telephone of same immediately upon agreeing thereon, so that the canvass may proceed ^idi all due speed, and, Sufficient cause appearing therefore, it is further ORDERED, that petitioners shall cause copies of this order together -with all of the ancillary papers rheretOj upon which this order was granted upon Respondent, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections, by personally delivering same to the offices thereof, or by personally delivering same to any of the Commissioners, their deputies or any employee designated to accept service thereof, or any Counsel thereof or the County Attorney of Montgomery Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County on or before |'. %t November g* , 2012, and upon the Sheriff's Departments of Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County by personal delivery of the same to the main offices thereof on orbefor^dayof NovemberJ^012 and upon respondent candidate Cecilia P. Tkaczyk, by personally delivering same to-EtK>r any attorney designated bylfejfbn or before November %? j''5^?2012oratthe option of the Petitioner, service may be made upon Respondents by
1

n^.-_ ,-J

-L

i*

J.

1-

enclosing same in a securely sealed and post paid y/rapper addressed to any of all the respondents via Express. ]f^^ft^^s'^^^^^j^p^^ct or depository of the United
States Postal Servicefori or before November
'.

' r , r\\

3ft 012, or by facsimile transmission to any

,. V/SJ?/M^ '

*+ i

*i

' , /012; or any other means of service orelNovemDer ?l3aty|0l2? and that such service shall be deemed good and sufficient service thereof, DATED: November
,2012

ENTER:

JUSTICE OF THESUPKEME COURT Cswv^. V,

10

teio

sis

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY In the Matter of GEORGE A, AMEDORE, JB. -agansi:A/ERIFIED PETITION GKEGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUTLA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J, SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners , constituting The Board qf Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGAKDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L, BLEDI Cornrnissioners, constitating The Boai-d of Elections For Albany County and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASS APD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and M1CHEAL J. M'lATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriff Js Department of Montgomery County PAUL YANBLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriff's "Department of "Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County; and The Sheriff's Department of Greene County CRAIG APPl) Sheriff of Albany County, And The Sheriff's Department of Albany County POMTMCDAGOSTTKfO,, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriff's Department of Schenectady County Candidate for the Ne^v York State Senate 46lh Senate District Respondents, INDEX #

YAIIS/MTOH SSOIddO

TGIO

SIS YYd 09:ST S T O E / i O / T T

For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102, 16406, 16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of all ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the pub He office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District, in the County of Greene, Montgomery, Albany, Schenecrady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set forth in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioner^) under Articles Five, Skj Seven, Eight; Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Lav/ and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16- 100 of the Election Law, declaring Petitioner Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondent Board(s) of Election.
_,--.__,__ _ _ _ n . n__^___>,.*.,,-.-____HHUi_i --..----_______ _ _ -*._____,__- -_,,___.___...___j.-V' ..

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Petitioner, GEORGE A, AMEDQRE, JR. by his attorney, Michael Cuevas, alleges as follo-WS:THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, GEORGE A. AMEDORE, Jr., at all times hereinafter mentioned is the Republican, Independence and Conservative Party candidate for the public office York State Senator for the 46th Senate District, State of Nev/ York> which was voted upon at the General Election held therefor on the sixth day of November 2012, 2. Petitioner> candidate has standing to bring the instant proceeding under die Election Law3 . Respondents Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and "Ulster County Boards of Elections and the Commissioners of each Board herein named in the caption are responsible for the canvassing the retains of the elections from the various municipalities and other political subdivisions v/itiiin Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County 46th Senate District, and certifying the results of elections for die public office of State Senator of the 46di District, acting in their capacity as Counry Boards of Canvassers. The Montgomery, Greene> Albany, Schenectady and Ulster County Boards of Election as part of their responsibilities are charged with conducting all of the post-election procedures and 12

VAiis/moH saoiddo m

TGLO m STS ra 19:21 s

those mandated by their rules, so long as such rules are not violarive or Inconsistent with the Wj the rights of the parties and the supervision of the courts over the exercise of such powers and responsibilities including canvassing, re canvassing voting machine results, canvassing affidavit, absentee and military as well as special ballots, the compilation of the final tallies of the votes cast and the certification of the results of the election to the New York State Board of Elections. 4. The New York State Board of Elections and the named Commissioners are responsible for the administration of die election process ill the State of Ne\ York, and certify the final canvas of the results in their capacity as the State Board of Canvassers. 5. The Sheriffs of the Counties of the Montgomery, Greene, Albany Scheneciady and Ulster, herein named in the caption are the heads of the Sheriffs Departments in their respective countiesv. The above captioned Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and "Ulster County Sheriff's Departments are charged widi maintaining order during the elections 'within each of Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Counties and preserving the integrity of the voting machines, the canvass sheets, the ballots cost and the memory sticks thai are part of the computer process of recording the votes of the voters at this election and is further required to act upon order of this Court to assign officers to such tasks for the preserving the integrity of the voting machines, the canvass sheets, the ballots cast and the memory sticks that are part of the computer process of recording the votes of the voters at this election pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Election Law, 6, P^spondent Cecilia F. Tkaczykis the Candidate for the public office of State Senator, 46rli District of die Democratic, Green and Working Families Parties in die instant general election.

13

no

VA1IS/NVHOH S

A1T1

T6iO

8TC

ZTOZ/iO/TT

7. This petition is made in order to preserve Petitioner's and die public's righs under the Election Law including Election Lay^ 16412 thereof to preserve all voting material in the canvass and return as well as the re canvass of returns from the General Election of November 6,2012 for the public office of State Senator of the 46th District. Such voting materials include unopened and/or non scanned ballots including absentee ballots, applications for absentee ballots, special ballots and applications for such ballots, affidavit ballots and envelopes containing such ballots, special ballot and military ballots, machine breakdown reports; mechanic or custodian' logs, election day affidavits, election day court orders, poll books, ballot stubs, spoiled ballots, voided or defective ballots, unused ballots and all copies of close of polls reports, all printed and electronic records and vote tallies, for the public office and relative to the public office of State Senator 46th Senate District; preserve inviolate and separate the ballots voted upon by the voters of Albany, Scheneoady, Montgomery, Greene and "Ulster counties for the office of State Senator for die 46th Senate District, from all others, and that such listed items be preserved, separated and held under a security system requiring bipartisan participation in order to access such material by the 'use of a two lock system mb a Commissioner of each party having the key to only one lock of the storage facility in "which election materials and ballots and other materials, and further together with court review of the canvass, re canvass and or audit of the electronic voting machines, special ballot marlting devices and or ballot scanners and the direction of an expanded audit and if so determined an audit pursuant to Election Law 16-102(3) and also to allow for comprehensive review of the matters under the jurisdiction of this Court, JURISDICTION 8, THs proceeding is commenced pursuant to the provisions of Articles Five, Six. Seven, Eight, Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law 16-100,16-106,16-112,16-113,16-116 and Article 73
14

YA1IS/MVHOH SHOMdO &YI

T6iO T'iC SIS ZYd T Q : Z

of the Ovil Practice Law and Rules, which confer authority upon this Court to determine and receive any disputes arising ont of or relating to the canvass^ re canvass of ballots and returns as -well as the handling of memory sticks and to preserve the ballots, including challenged ballots, the machines and die memory sticks employed in the General Election for the public office of State Senator for the 46th Senate District, 9. Upon information and belief, predicated upon news reports and reports of polls and the like, the outcome of this election based upon die information disclosed so far on the night of die election demonstrate that the election appears to be very close . In the past experience of counsel and others when the outcome appears to ba very close the outcome then may hinge upon the re canvass of voting machines, the condition and reliability of die memory sticks, and the canvas of paper ballots including affidavit; absentee and rniKtaryas well as special ballots. VENUE 10. This action brought in Montgomery County is based upon the fact that the 46th State Senate District is partly -within Montgomery County and is the residence of a number of the respondents. THE REASONS FOR THE ACTION 11. Upon information and belief, numerous paper ballots, electronic records of votes rernain uncanvassed, and the canvass of such ballots may determine the outcome of this election, 12. Upon information and belief, the unofficial canvass of the votes cast by voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash drives, die electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices, and ballot stubs for the subject public office is incomplete and or inaccurate. 13. Upon information and belief, several of the machines used in this election may have been defective whidi "would have resulted in inaccurate tallies of votes, and additionally other
15

VA1IS/NVHOH

T6iO m 8TS

ZTOZ/iQ/TT

irregularities in the election process xnaygive rise to improper votes being canvassed or the canvass of inaccurate returns. The machines employed in this election are computer operated optical scan machines which are notoriously insecure, have not been fully tested for a General Election, create issues concerning over-voting, raise privacy and security of the vote issues, are prone to "hacking" and other fraudulent attacks which can compromise the results of an election. 14. In addition the prognujiming of the machines used in this election provides for the canvass and counting of ballots that are otherwise invalid under the terms of the Election Law and the body of case kw in New York State. 15. Upon information and belief, the numbers of improper and invalid ballots that were counted and canvassed by the Montgomery; Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Board of Elections' computerised voting equipment are significant and will influence the final results of the election. 16. In addition, the programming of the machines used in this election does not allow for the canvass and counting of ballots that are otherwise valid under the terms of the Election Law aad the body of case law m New York State. 17. Upon information and belief, the numbers of proper and valid ballots that were not counted and canvassed by the Montgomery; Greene, Albany Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections1 computerised voting equipment are significant and will influence the final results of the election. 18. The brief history of these electronic voting machines in. New York State has been marked by machine failures in the polling places, die compromise of voters1 right to cast a secret ballo^ confusion, and disenfranchisement of voters and the mishandling of ballots.

16

VATIS/HVXOH saomo iin

TSAO ne STS M z^zi ZTOZ/WTT

19. Further, defective machines should result indie use of paper "emergency ballots" which should not be canvassed by the Respondent Montgomery, Greene, Albany; Schenectady and Ulster Board of Elections on election night 20. Upon information and belief, there are several "affidavit ballots" which have not yet been reviewed or canvassed by the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections, 21. Upon information, and belief, there are several "absentee ballots" 'which have not yet been reviewed or canvassed by the Respondents Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections, Further, npon information and belief, many of these absentee ballots are yet to be received by the Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections. Properly post marked absentee ballots may be received by Respondents Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections for canvassing until November 19th 2010, an extended date due to the hurricane and the aftermath of the storm. 22. Upon information and belief Respondents, Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections; acting by local Board of Inspectors, in canvassing these ballots may have tie votes, maybe unable to determine the validity of individual ballots, or may err In determining the invalidity of individual ballots. 23. Upon information and belief, the time required for the canvass of these ballots may exceed the three day preservation period provided for in Section 9-209 Election Law. 24. Upon information and belief, certain victims of the recent storm were denied the right to vote for the office of State Senator for the 46th Senate District, and said persons fully intended to cast their ballots for Petitioner and were denied the right to do so.

YAlIS/KTOffi SHOIddO ilVT

T6iO friC STS XVd 521ST ZTQS/iO/TT

25. Upon information and belief, the facts alleged in the paragraphs hereinabove, point to the fact that the final results of this election hinges upon the canvass of the various types of paper ballots mentioned hereinabove, as well as a review of the canvass of the machine cast ballots, voting machines, ballots3 scanners, "sticks'* or flash driveSj the electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices, and ballot stubs. 26. No court has been requested to, or taken jurisdiction over the canvass and recanvass of votes in the subject state senate district. 27. Should there not be any impoundment order entered "with regard to statewide races or one be withdrawn or vacated there "will be no protection of the machines and paper ballots in the subject state senate district. Such a situation would present a lapse in security for the electoral process in. this senate district and leave the election .returns vulnerable to fraud, 28. Any lapse in security Or breech of protective measures for the voting machines, ballots, scanners, "sticks" or flash drives , the electronic record of voting similar to USB port devices, and ballot stubs relating to the election for state senator in the subject state senate district would irreparably harm petitioner^ and, indeed, undermine public confidence in the electoral process29. Petitioner requests leave to, and reserves the right to submit further proofs by -way of witnesses, affidavits; and evidence upon the date set by this court for the trial and heanng of this matter, and to amend these pleadings to reflect the facts adduced byway of further investigation and/or a canvass of the ballots for election to the subject public office by the Montgomery, Greene, Albany, Schenectady and Ulster Boards of Elections. 30. This action is being brought outside the ordinary hours of business of the Court and specifically the Clerk's Office. This renders h impossible to purchase an index number, RJI? or to file these papers prior to application being made to this Court.
13

VA1IS/NVHQH SHOIddO AiVT

T6iO ne 8TS XYd Z S ^ Z T ZTOZ/WTT

31. This proceeding is commenced pursuant to the provisions of Article Five, Sk, Seven, Eight, Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law, which confers authority upon this Court to determine and resolve any disputes arising out of or relating to the canvass of ballots and returns for public office. 32. In order to assure that the ballots and voting machines in the subject senate district are immediately protected, and that every step is taken to prevent tampering and feud, it is respectfully submitted that service of the within requested order must be made as soon as possible. This would require service priorto the filing of these papers and application for an. index number and R.JI. 33. Application is hereby made to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Q?LR section 304 for leave to make a subsequent firing not later than 5 days after the signing of this order and tor leave to effectuate service upon the parties hereto forthwith. 34. Further application is made to this Court for leave to serve a copy of the within order and papers upon the parties hereto subsequent to the filing and purchase of and Kfl and index number. 35. It is respectfully submitted that the circumstances described herein present this court -with an emergency situation requiring immediate action, and further that the very nature of an election proceeding^ particularly with regard to ballot integrity, presents an exemption, to any rule which might bar the court's action in other circumstances, Banko y. Webber , 7 NY2d 758 (1959). 36. As this is a general election, petitioner has requested that the Board of Elections, acting in its capacity as the Board of Canvassers) be enjoined from certifying die results of this election until such time as these court proceedings are finally resolved and determined. Absent such injunction Petitioner will lose his right to proceed directly before the courts of this state to 19

020

TAIIS/HVHOE SEDIiiO A1V1

T6iO

SIS

correct the canvass of the returns of the general election, and the matter will be removed from the jurisdiction of this Court, except by way of a quo -mrfartta proceeding initiated by and at the sole discretion of the Attorney General of the State of New York. The Board of Elections is required bylaw to recanvass the returns whin, 15 days from the date of the general election pursuant to Election Law Section 9- 208. The request for said injunction as to certification is requested only to protect the rights of the petitioner in the event of delay in the conclusion of all court proceedings extending beyond 15 days,

WHEREFORE; Petitioner respectfully demands: (1) an order of this Court in the first instance thai the Respondent Board of Elections be temporarily enjoined arid restrained from certifying any candidate other than the Petitioner) GEORGE A, AMEDOKE, Jr., as the candidate duly elected to the office of State Senator 46th State Senate District and (2) a judgment of this court correcting, adjusting and. finalizing the canvass of returns for the General Election for election to the o0ice of New York State Senate, 46th Senate District and further declaring that the Respondent Board of Elections certify the name of Petitioner GEORGE A, AMEDGRE, Jr. as the candidate duly elected to the said public office, together -with the relief requested in the attached Order to Show Cause and such other, further) and different relief that this court may deem, to be just and proper.

EATED: NQvember_6_?2012 MICHAEL R. COEVAS, Of Coxinsel James E. Walsh, Esq 514 State Street Schenectady, New York 12305 515 396-7415

VA1IS/MVHOH S

AlVT

ie sis

ZTOS/WTT

VERIFICATION

STATE OF 3SEWYOKK. COUNTY OF

) )5s.:

GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR,3 being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Petitioner in the -within proceeding and action; that he has read the wthin Petition and knows the contents of said Petition. Said Petition is true to my knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true

/JEDORE.JR Sworn to before me this Ndverripfir1

NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF 3NEW YORKQualified in Schenectady County Reg.No. 02CU6190014 My Commission expires 7/7/2016

21

YA1IS/NVHOH S

A\V1

io nc sts

es:st ZIQZ

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDOKE, JR. Petitioner, -againstATTORNEY'S A GREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KEIXKEK, INDEX #

JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA,

COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J, SMITH Commissioners, constituting Trie Board of Elections For Montgomery County) and C, VtCTOR WORK and THOMAS K TURCO Commissioners, constituting Tne Board of Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County; and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L, BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioner constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriff's Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BIARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriff's Department of Ulster County GREGORY K. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriff's Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany Cotintyj And The Sheriff's Department of Albany County DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriff's Department of Schenectady County CECILIA P. TKACZ1%

VA1IS/MVHOH

I6iD ^IC STS

STOS/iO/TT

Candidate for the New York State Senate Senate District Respondents, For an ORDER, pursuant to Sections 16-102, 16-106, 16-112 and 16-113 of the Election Law, directing the preservation of all ballots cast in the General Election held on November 6, 2012, for the public office of State Senator for the 46th State Senate District, in. the County of Greene, Montgomery Albany, Schenectady and Ulster and invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the casting or canvassing or the refusal to cast or canvass any ballot as set forth in Election Law 16-106(1) and preserving the rights of Petitioners) under Articles Five^ Sk; Seven, Eight, Ten Nine and Sixteen of the Election Law and Section 16-113 of the Election Law and related sections of law; and pursuant to Section 16-100 of the Election Law, declaring Petitioner, Candidate the lawfully elected candidate in this Election and ordering the certification of said Petitioner Candidate by Respondents boards of Election. STATE OF NEW YORK ) CITY & COUNTY OF ALBANY )SS:

MICHAEL R. CUEVAS, being an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York, under the penalty of perjury affirms as follows: 1. That I am an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York and of Counsel to James E. Walsh, Esq. the attorney for the petitioner, George A. Amedore, Jr., herein, That 1 make this affirmation in support of the petitioner's Order to Show Cause and petition. This proceeding is brought "by the petitioner as a candidate pursuant to Election Law as it concerns the returns of canvass of the November 63 2012 General Election in the 46th Senate District, That this matter i$ brought by Order to Show Cause in that the unofficial results reported in the General Election for this race indicate that about 140 votes separate the two caDdidates,

2.

3.

4.

VAIIfi/NVHOH

A1V1

TSiO

ST3

STO^/IO/TT

5.

Prior to requesting the relief sought in the Order to Show Cause, your affnmant sought to contact the County Attorneys in the five counties that comprise the 46U Senate District and who might represent the Board of Elections in those counties to ascertain whether an order on consent could be agreed upon. Unfortunately, Election Day being a holiday in most counties, I was Only able to reach one County Attorney, Beatrice Havranek of Ulster County who suggested we not discuss the matter at that time. On behalf of Mr. Walsh31 have faxed the proposed Order to Show Cause and Petition to each of trie County Attorneys and Boards of Elections with the request that they contact me with any objections and advising them that I pian to present the Order to Show Cause to the .Hon. Guy Tomlinson, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court on November 7} 2012 at 9:00 AM at the Schenectady County Courthouse.

6.

7. '( will attempt to 'call all the County Attorneys prior to the presentation of the Order to Show Cause to see if an order can be agreed upon, 8. Although I inquired of various attorneys involved in election law matters, none were aware of any attorney that might be representing candidate .Cecilia Tkaezyk, but one of the County Attorneys might be able to advise me on the morning of November 7, 2012. 1'f so, I will attempt to reach Ms. Tkaczyk's attorney,.

9. . Given the extremely close election contest, it is imperative that all election materials be secured as soon as possible as every vote will surely count in this election. 10. No previous application has been to this, or any other court, for the relief requested herein. 11. I certify that this action is not frivolous.

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court grant an order as requested in the Order to Show Cause and granting petitioner such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated:November 6, 2012 Albany, New York MICHAEL R.CU EVAS

VA1IS/HVHQH

AiTI

TSiG flC 8TS

STOS/iO/ff"

J."?

>

Exhibit C
(SBOE Letter)

JamesA. Walsh Co-Chair Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner Todd D. Valentine Co-Executive Director

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 40 STEUBEN STREET ALBANY, N.Y. 12207-2108 ^ SlS/474-6336 Fax: 518/474-1008 URL; http://WWW.elections.state.ny.us

DOUIasA.KeIlner Co-Chair Evelyn J, AquOa Commissioner

Stanley L.Zalen

Co-Executive Director

November 26, 2008

To Commissioners of: Dutchess County Board of Elections Orange County Board of Elections Ulster County Board of Elections

Dear Commissioners: Pursuant to statute, the State Board has a scheduled meeting for December 4th to certify the results of this November's election for all state-wide and multi-county races (i.e. Presidential, Judicial District, Senate, etc.). Your failure to provide election results as you have on hand inhibits that effort and we ask that you provide your county's results no later than Friday November 28th. We recognize the inability of your Board to certify results as to the 100th Assembly District race that is subject to an outstanding court ordered impoundment. We ask that you issue a certification based upon the current vote totals you have in your possession with respect to all other races and with the understanding that such certification may change when disputed ballots in the affected race are ultimately canvassed. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Stanley L. m&nf /~X/

Todd D -

Valentine

a uq

1
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR.,

Petitioner(s) -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, Commissioners, constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH, Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO, Commissioners, Constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster County, and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS, Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L, BLEDI, Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD, Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAEL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriff's Department of Montgomery County, PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriff's Department of Ulster County, GREG9RY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County/ and The Sheriff's Department of Greene County, CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriff's Department of Albany County, DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady County, and The Sheriff's Department of Schenectady County, CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District, Respondent(s).
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURTHOUSE FONDA, NEW YORK 12068 December 3, 2012 AFTERNOON SESSION

10 11

-12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1
2 3

B-E-F-0-R-E: HONORABLE GUY P. TOMLINSON, Acting Supreme Court Justice

4 A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S: 5 DAVID L. LEWIS, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner 6 225 Broadway New York, New York 10007 7 JOHN CIAMPOLI, ESQ., of Counsel 8 BETH GARVEY, ESQ., of Counsel 9
10

FEATHERSTONHAUGH, WILEY & CLYNE, LLP 11 BY: FRANK G. HOARE, ESQ. of Counsel Attorneys for Respondent 12 99 Pine Street Albany, New York 12207 13 KATHLEEN O'KEEFE, ESQ. 14 Co-Counsel, Attorney for Respondent 65 Anthon Drive 15 Earlton, New York 12058
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
KIM K. NETHAWAY

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

We're back on the record in

the 46th Senate District election matter. For Petitioner note the appearance of David Lewis. Respondent, note the appearance of

Frank Hoare with the same Attorneys they were with earlier this morning. Do you have someone else to add? MR. HOARE: Yes, Your Honor. I wanted

to introduce as my Co-Cousel Kathleen O'Keefe will be joining me as this matter proceeds/ and once we deal with the issue of the counting of Schenectady and Montgomery we have another issue to raise with Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And

Miss O'Keefe -- how does she spell her name? MS. 0'KEEFE: 0-K-E-E-F-E. K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N,

It's a pleasure to be here for

the first time in your court, Judge. THE COURT: here. All right. Thank you. Glad you're

With regards to the press, I think we have the same people that were here earlier. The Court's ruling is -- well, not the same, KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

but we've got the same situation.

One

camera, one still and one tape, if any, no more, and to share if there are other requests, and no board of election, and I wanted to see where we stand with regard to tomorrow, what we may have agreed to or have proposed. Mr. Lewis? I have an already battered I don't know if

MR. LEWIS:

written piece of paper.

Your Honor wants me to hand it up or read it. I'd rather I hand it up if you can read

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it.
THE COURT: shot at it. good. MR. LEWIS: Neither is mine. That's All right. I'll take a

My handwriting is not very

why it's battered.

Mr. Hoare and I have

agreed on the language in it. THE COURT: All right. You have a

preamble, "In order to preserve the objections of the parties in this action: Objections: And for the purpose of

determining finality in the judicial races involving Montgomery and Schenectady Counties the following procedures shall
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

apply:

In each county the ballots/

envelopes and other relevant material shall be presented to and argued to this Court. The Court shall decide the issue relevant to each ballot. Upon sustaining the objection/

the ballot shall remain closed. Upon overruling the objection/ all steps would be taken to process the original" -- the -- -oh -- "the objection to ensure voter privacy at the conclusion of the hearing on envelopes"? MR. LEWIS: You have it. Maybe I

should just read it. THE COURT: "The ballots ordered to be

counted shall be canvassed by the Commissioners of the respective county. original ballot shall be removed from the original envelope. The ballot shall be The

copied by the Democrat and Republican Commissioners and returned immediately to the envelope." MR. LEWIS: next. THE COURT: "And re-sealed. The copy And re-sealed is what's

shall be marked on the reverse of the ballot to reflect the town/ city board, election
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12

district.

The copy then goes to the

Commissioner's counting table and is canvassed. The Board shall maintain a tally

of the judicial races only so as -to enable final certification of all races except the 46th Senate District race. The Democratic

and Republican Commissioners or any employee of the board shall not disclose the vote for any of the candidates in the 46th Senate District." Is that the substance of the

proposed agreement?
MR. LEWIS: Yes.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

All right.

Are we

determining the objections to the ballot in Schenectady and Montgomery County for the 46th Senate District? MR. LEWIS: Yes. That's separate from In

what I believe Your Honor wants to do. other words, you will determine those as

well, but we still shouldn't have results and information about that race so that we preserve our Appellate issues. THE COURT: Right. So we -- in other

words, I want to make sure I understand the procedure that we're proposing is that
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

whatever ballots have been opened pursuant to the Court's decision on the envelopes you will then raise any objections to those ballots for the 46th -MR. LEWIS: Wo. My understanding is is

that the 46th is -- the envelopes will be opened. The ballots will be copied for the The 46th race

purpose of the judicial race.

will only deal with -- Your Honor can make the rulings, but we're not going to view the ballots because we aren't going to see the ballots in that race, so my understanding was we were not going to do the face of the ballot objections for two candidates as opposed to the others, so the idea was to accommodate the Court on certification of judicial races but to not - THE COURT: Right, I understand what

you're saying is this agreement would allow us to vote the judicial races, they wouldn't be held up any longer. MR. LEWIS: of the concerns. THE COURT: concern, That certainly was a Which ostensively was one

what I thought I was getting was

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

an agreement that we would decide the ballot issues just for Schenectady and Montgomery. MR. HOARE: THE COURT: That's what I thought. That it was a small number

we would have gotten that done, but obviously we want to make sure we're in agreement on this. MR. LEWIS: I did not understand that's I said that if Your Honor

what I agreed to,

wanted to open the ballots in the judicial race then that would be fine. THE COURT: MR. HOARE: All right. Mr. Hoare?

I had your understanding,

Your Honor, that we would be looking at canvasing the ballots, you would be allowed to review these ballots, and I was going to further -- I think a question remains once we decide Montgomery and Schenectady I would

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

suggest and argue that it should be done -if we're going to do it for Montgomery and Schenectady it's done for all five counties. Again, to avoid any appearance or raising any questions as to why these two counties versus the other three counties and not to have a uniformed process. 1 understood that
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

we were reviewing the ballot -- I'm sorry. I understood that we would view with Your Honor the envelope. If Your Honor

determined that there was a basis for an objection to the envelope then the envelope would be set aside. If Your Honor

determined that there was no objection to the envelope we would then open up the envelope and look at that ballot. The

Commissioners would have to rule in the first place whether they thought it was valid or not. If they thought it was valid If we had no

we would then review it.

objection that ballot would be canvassed for the races appearing therein on that ballot. I think to start separating it out by races or separating out by counties just adds mischief to the process of a word that was used this morning, and I think it raises more questions and makes it more questionable than it helps us here. ' THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lewis,

comments? MR. LEWIS: document. I showed Mr. Hoare the That's why

He said it was okay.

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME- COURT 518 853-8161

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I handed it up to you.

If I had some

inkling that that was his issue I wouldn't have handed it up. I think this is a back

door way to try and get all five counties O'Keefe'd. I think that's a mistake. I

thought we literally spoke about it until nobody was interested in saying anything else this morning. To be very honest/ I

think you're -- if we're going to do what they are talking about we need an interim order/ and that we can appeal/ because quite candidly that's a totally different process. The original order that you signed barred any O'Keefe'g of ballots. This is a We're

modification we're talking about.

trying to accommodate the judicial races which was what the counties were concerned with/ and I think that the smarter move is that we do -- to the extent that I agree with Mr. Hoare that the five should be done the same way/ and they should be done the way we've been talking about it rather than create something new that's going to be an invitation to problems. THE COURT: I agree. There's a benefit
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to doing them all the same. When we left

this morning I had said if we get agreement on Schenectady and Montgomery maybe I could talk you into adding Albany. From the

Court's perspective I just had the belief that with the parties here, with the Board here, It would save us some time, and this is subject to argument, of course, to then go the next step and hear the objections to the ballots/ if there are any, to be brought to the Court. MR. LEWIS: I think the Invitation to I

the slippery slope has to be declined.

just think that we're making another level of possible litigation to no particular benefit since this process because of the nature of it and what's at stake Is going to be resolved in Appellate Court, and I would submit to you that the less we have to bring them the better off we all are, so I would maintain my position that If Your Honor Is going to rule that we're going to O'Keefe Schenectady and Montgomery I think we need an appealable order, and that would lead me to my remedies that I would have to at least
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .

consider pursuing and certainly consider the client's interests that way. MS. O'KEEFE: Your Honor, if I could

address the Court briefly? THE COURT: Yes, Miss O'Keefe. Although my personal

MS. O'KEEFE:

legal opinion is that the O'Keefe method is not authorized by the Supreme Court by case law or statute, I understand that the Court is inclined to go that route, and my colleagues are inclined to agree to that. My concern about what Mr. Lewis is suggesting is that he is actually suggesting we go up on appeal on ballots that you have not actually ruled on. How can we take a

ballot out of an envelope, count it for a judicial race, put it back in the envelope and go up on appeal on that? What exactly

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

is being appealed if we haven't exercised

the full process here before the Supreme Court? We need to open the ballots -- even

if we're using the O'Keefe method, open the ballots -- review the face of the ballot, have the Commissioners rule, have the Court address that ruling, and then you go up on
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

appeal.

Otherwise the Appellate Division How

does not have your ruling to review. does that actually -THE COURT:

I think Mr. Lewis's point

this morning was that often the reality Is when we get Appellate review on the envelope and come back for the ballots there really are very few left that -- the Appellate decision on the envelopes will often mean there's no more contest when we come back with whatever instructions or additional actions are required by the Appellate Court. We have only a very few objections to the ballots, and the reality will be the numbers will be such that we only went up once on the envelope, came back, and the matter settled, and we didn't have the benefit of all of the counties being here, but I had inquired of Albany whether they had some experience to share In that regard. They

really didn't have any that supported -- I don't know that anyone had any that supported or argued against that theory. It

was attractive to the Court that we might be able to ,proceed with half and settle, but
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

thereTs certainly no guarantee of that/ and I agree with the part of your reasoning that we're only up there having done part of the job in front of the Appellate Court and may very well need to go back. MR. CIAMPOLI: Mr. Ciarnpoli?

Your Honor, I want to Number

try to force some agreement here.

one, I want to agree with Ms. O'Keefe's opinion that I don't believe that this method of canvasing ballots will withstand Appellate review, and I think that's the point that Mr. Lewis brought out. The

question would be are you going to order this method to be used for the canvas and the judicial review of the ballots in this race, and I think that's a question as we said before. The Third Department hasn't

commented on it, and I really don't believe the Court of Appeals will ultimatelyapprove it. On the other hand, I think there's some

agreement that we can get the judicial races cleared/ and there's an interest. There's

an interest of the public in seeing the judicial races cleared, and that has to be balanced against the right of the voters to KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

15

1
2 3 4 5

a confidential ballot.

By keeping both

sides in the dark as to what is on the ballots that the Court might order opened, what's on the face of those ballots, you prevent the Attorneys from attempting to manipulate the results, because you're going

to have an election district where there's going to be one ballot. Therefore, we're

9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

going to know, A, the identity of that voter, we're going to know who the voter voted for in this particular race if we know that now, and it would occur to me that i if it's my objection and this person who I objected to voted in fact for my candidate I should withdraw that objection, okay, or if it works the other way, you know, the manipulation comes in at the Appellate level, and the Court should do everything it can to avoid that manipulation. That's the

reason why the traditional way to do this and the way that was done most recently in Stewart, in Johnson versus Martins, is to keep the envelope sealed, so by allowing the judicial race to be tallied, okay, that gets that service to the public so they know who
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

won those races out of the way, it enables us to then litigate this case, but there's something to be said for how our system of canvasing ballots and then having the Court review them without knowing what's in the envelope. Your Honor/ I am told the first time Counsel were here said/ "I don't want you going to the voters and asking them/ 'Who did you vote for/'" to find out what's in the envelope/ okay, because at that point the legal arguments become -~ THE COURT: I don't think I said that, Will you --

as wise as it might be. MR. CIAMPOLI:

The legal arguments

shouldn't become slaves to what's in the envelopes. If I have a point of view

regarding an envelope there's a certain bipartisan. They do their objections, 1 do

my objections, you decide those objections ultimately/ okay, but we don't know what's in the envelope, and that protects the voters. It. protects the manipulation of the

process/ and I think that's what the Court has to do, so I think it would be good if we
KIM K. NETKAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can all agree and the Court could so order that the Commissioners go in the room with the instruction of the Court that they are to preserve confidentiality. You open the

envelope, you canvas the judicial races and that's it. MS. O'KEEFE: Your Honor, the Board of

Elections is an administrative agency just like all the administrative agencies, and we can analogize in Article 78. You get a

decision from the administrative agency and your appeal is to the Supreme Court, and you as the finder of fact can make a determination on many of these issues whether they are legal or factual. To

somehow suggest that we should -- the gate, that whole step at the Supreme Court, create our own new process in the Election Law with which the Court of Appeals clearly say should not be done, that the Supreme Court should not create processes to handle these recounts in a way that the Election Law does not define. The Election Law says you get

judicial review at the Supreme Court level. Once that occurs that ballot -- if the Court
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

orders it opened -- should be opened. just should be opened.

It

Now/ if the Court has decided to use this O'Keefe method/ at the very least what should occur is what would ordinarily occur and then preserve the ballot for Appellate review/ but we shouldn't change what ordinarily would occur before the Supreme Court/ and that is exactly what my colleagues here are suggesting. precedent for this. There's no

In fact/ there's no

precedent at the Appellate Division for uncounting a vote that the Supreme Court has counted. . There's no precedent for that/ so when they suggest that we sort of recreate a whole new world here my argument is there's no case law, and there is no statute that supports doing either. MR. LEWIS: this one by one. Let me see if I can answer First/ the Article 78

process is different than the Election Law/ and the Election Law has repeatedly said it's a self contained system in which you go out of it only when there's something missing. That's the first thing.
KIM K. NETHAWAY

The

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

19

1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15

second thing is the O'Reefe method is an anomaly. It is an anomaly of New York City

Board of Elections and been upheld by the Second Department. No one else uses it/ and

no cases ever used it outside of O'Keefe and one other. They've counted that way in New

York City in those counties, but everywhere else in the State nobody's done an O'Keefe system, so that's the first thing. The second thing is Miss O'Keefe says no Court's ever taken votes away or handed votes away. Read the cases. They

constantly -- when they reverse decisions they take votes away and change who won, so the whole point of the Appellate process is not that you get to get rubber stamped but,

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

rather, changes in the outcome based on the legal answers given by the Appellate process, so Ms. O'Keefe with all due respect is just wrong. The whole entire system is

predicated on review by the Court and review by the Appellate Courts, and each review at each stage if it alters the quantum of votes alters the count and directs the Board of Elections to recanvas along the lines of
KIM K. NETBAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

20

1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

what the Court has said, so what we're really asking for is to use an anomaly from the Second Department and use it to count two counties. We've attempted to meet Your

Honor's request about the judicial races so that all the other races can be finally certified. We came up with a suggestion of

a process that protects the privacy of the voters and the 46th race from being manipulated in any way by anybody, and quite frankly there's no reason to count -- to open them, vote them and then unvote them if we have to do that. Finally, there aren't that many ballot objections that really drive this discussion. There are only, I believe, 38

in all the -~ almost 10,000 -- almost a thousand objections in all the counties, so what we're talking about even if we're worried about that number that somehow will be significant on remit, if you will, it's not a significant number, and candidly whatever happens in the Appellate Court this case is going to get remitted first to you and then to the Board or remitted directly
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

to the Board for recanvas, so it's not like it's something we avoid. We just are

beholding to the process , and there's nothing in the Election Law that says you've got to count them all before it goes up. That ' s not required by any of the records , and it's obvious that where the Appellate Courts say open the ballot -- such as Stewart where they ruled to open one ballot and not the other -- the sides actually switch sides in their applications, and one side urged to open the ballot that had previously sought that it be closed because it had been opened, and he knew it was his vote/ so his legal position changed. The

Court of Appeals said, "Well/ you can change your legal position, but the fact of the matter is we shouldn't be playing that sort of gamesmanship." MS. O'KEEFE: Mr. Ciampoli and I were Mr. Ciampoli

19
20

21 22 23 24 25

in the Finger V Martins case.

urged the Court to use the O'Keefe method, and over my objection the Court used the O'Keefe method. County. That was in Columbia

I have been in many other counties

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

where the O'Keefe method has been raised, so it is not totally limited to the Second Department as Mr. Lewis has stated. As far as the counting of the ballots,

if you look at the case law, these are

ballots that have been opened and that the Court -- and that they preserved/ but they have been opened and counted, and the Court looks at that and then decides whether or not they should have been counted, but it's not -- and they're in dispute. It's not a

matter that the ballots are sent up without a previous ruling by the Supreme Court. MR. LEWIS: If you look at Paneo, those If you look at

ballots were uncounted.

these Appellate Decisions they're opened over objections in some cases, but other cases they're not opened. Where it's one or

two the ballots are opened because they're dispositive, but that's not what we have here. Finally, whether Mr. Ciampoli was in Finger and took a position in Finger or didn't -- and Miss O'Keefe assures us that the O'Keefe method was used everywhere -KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

23

1 2 3 4

the fact of the matter is there are no reported decisions except from the Second Department. MS. O'KEEFE: Mr. Lewis, I did not

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

say
MR. LEWIS: THE COURT: respond. MR. LEWIS: It's my understanding only Excuse me. I'll give you a chance to

the Second Department has approved this method/ so if it's been used elsewhere there's no approval except in the Second Department. The fact of the matter is if

it's done somewhere else doesn't make it done correctly, and that isn't reason for us to do it given the amount of ballots in question in this situation. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Hoare, Ms. O'Keefe, anything further? MS. O'KEEFE: Your Honor, the Second

Department did not pass on the process that is being proposed here. What the Second

Department looked at and what the O'Keefe case used was this method at the Board of Elections. It was to preserve the ballots
KIM K. NETH&WAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

for judicial review at the Supreme Court. There's no case that says use it
dL,

the

Supreme Court in order to preserve review at the Appellate Division. There's no case.

The O'Keefe method happened at the Boards of Elections. The way I understand here it

happened in the Albany Board of Elections but not in the other counties. I'm not

clear why that was the case, but that's what I understand happened. What I am saying is

to Import this Board of Elections method here to the Supreme Court. At the very

least it should be used the way that it is used in the O'Keefe case. I mean, it's one

thing to bring it into the Supreme Court from the Boards. It's another thing to

create a whole new mechanism that no Court has ever looked at. THE COURT: Well, I agree with much From the

that-each of you have said.

Court's perspective, I was going to hopefully take the best of O'Keefe and improve upon it. I think that a hybrid

O'Keefe method could be used that would allow us to rule on the envelope.
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

Then if

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

they were opened to preserve the secrecy of the vote perhaps by shuffling the envelopes, withdrawing them randomly, opening them so that we don't know the Identity of the voter and then hearing the objection and by a numbering system to ensure the Appellate review process, but I wanted the parties to agree to a method to do this. that we don't. It's obvious

Therefore, I will Order that

we will judge all of the envelopes in all five counties, and then Immediately upon completion of that we will hear any objections to the ballots, and of course this may mean that there will be an application Appellate review after the envelopes have been tried, but from the Court's perspective I -~ the Court would Intend to immediately begin the ballot process so that there need not be an Appellate review of just the envelope issue, that we could complete the ballots on the Issues with regard to those after giving the Board the opportunity to do their jobs but, again, I understand that It may be the position of one, the other or both parties
KIM K. NETHAWAY

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that they will wish to apply for Appellate review when we've completed a review of the envelope issues/ so tomorrow we will begin with Schenectady followed with Montgomery and then Albany/ Dutchess and Ulster, and we will go through all the -MR. LEWIS: THE COURT: say Dutchess? MR. LEWIS: Judge/ again/ not Dutchess. Greene. I'm sorry. Did I

Greene and Ulster. So I understand/ it's Your

Honor's Decision that we're going to open envelopes. Did I understand that? Not until after I've

THE COURT:

reviewed all of them/ so that will give you the opportunity -- both sides - - i f you believe it's appropriate to take the envelope issues to the Appellate Court, you know/ that you may do so. I don't intend to My

build in any time for you to do that.

approach is we will open the envelopes after we've finished all of the envelope arguments unless there's a stay that prohibits me from doing that. MR. LEWIS: We would need an Order that

would enable us to seek such a stay, and the

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16

Court's oral Order may not be sufficient. THE COURT: You may prepare an Order so

that either side will be in a position to apply for a stay and/ of course/ I'll execute that/ so tomorrow werll be ready to go at 9:30 with Schenectady County. We will

hear the objections to the envelopes, all of the envelopes. MR. LEWIS: first? THE COURT: No. I've been saying You wanted Montgomery

Schenectady right along/ and I think in my letter it said Schenectady should be prepared to go first. MR. LEWIS:
I'm set.

I just shuffled my papers.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

Make sure we're ready with

Schenectady at 9:30 followed by Montgomery/ Albany/ and then the bigger counties following those three. Other issues that we need to address today before we break? MR. LEWIS: Yes/ Judge. We have

subpoenas that we need to have signed. THE COURT: Have you given Mr. Hoare's KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

team a chance to look at those? MR. LEWIS: that now. THE COURT: So do that. Afterthey've I think we're going to do

had a chance to look at them then the Court will review the subpoenas. ' If there's any objections with regard to them I'll give you a chance to be heard. Anything else/

Mr. Lewis/ before I call on the opposition? MR. LEWIS: THE COURT: MR. HOARE: No, Your Honor. Mr. Hoare? First/ as a matter of form

and cursory/ our team has prepared subpoenas for the Board of Elections/ the State Board of Elections. We were prepared just to go

to the Judge in Albany since it is a State agency located there, but if Your Honor would prefer us to bring them to you we can do that. THE COURT: I have no objection to Of

another Judge signing the subpoenas.

course what I want is both sides to share the subpoenas with each other so that we're aware of who is being subpoenaed and what the subpoenas are and to have a copy of
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

29

1
2 3 4 5

those subpoenas here so there won't be any question about them. MR. LEWIS: I mean, the only problem I

have is the trial Judge should be signing

the -THE COURT: I'm here, and I'll sign

them.

I'm not sure whether some subpoenas

have already been obtained by another Judge.

9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

I don't want to slow the process down. MR. HOARE: Your Honor. We haven't done it yet,

We were going to do it this

afternoon because it's Albany and they are right across the street from the State Board of Elections. Otherwise, we'll bring them

out tomorrow morning with us and have Your Honor sign them, and then we'll take it from there. MR. LEWIS: We only need to see a copy. I'm

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

I'm not going to object to subpoenas. just not. THE COURT:

From my perspective, if you

can get them signed this afternoon in Albany and served in Albany that makes the process move more quickly, the Court has no objection to that.
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COtMTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

MR. HOARE:

The second issue, Your

Honor, was I still have not -- I don't know if this is what Mr. Lewis is going to share with me, the faxes -- that the subpoenas that were faxed Friday night I still have not seen them. We have an objection that

Ms. O'Keefe would like to raise an issue based on those. MR. LEWIS: We don't have them here. We

We faxed them to Mr. Hoare's office. didn't bring them to Court. them. THE COURT:

The Court's got

I have the copies that I I have them right

received that evening. here.

I'll give them to you. Faxing copies of

MS. O'KEEFE:

subpoenas on Friday evening before the weekend when you're due in court first thing on Monday morning is not really sufficient notice. MR. LEWIS: a minute. Well, wait a minute. Wait

Wait a minute.
Wait.

Wait a minute.
Wait. From

THE COURT:

Wait.

24 25

the Court's perspective it's kind of like getting them from a Judge in Albany County
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

when you're here in front of the Judge today. It may not be the best either, so

what my approach is to do what works/ and I know that you both will probably have issues getting evidence here, and that's why my approach is if we can get a subpoena signed on Friday night and served on Saturday that gives the agencies a little more time/ there!s some benefit in that. If we can

have a Judge in Albany sign the subpoena so that it can be served this afternoon instead of tomorrow afternoon may help your case, so from the Court's perspective whatever moves it along and works is what I want to do, but I agree you need to see them. Both sides

need to know what's being subpoenaed and to have a chance to review those subpoenas. There may be information that both sides will use from the subpoenaed records. MS. O'KEEFE: With respect to the

subpoenas that have been described to me, because I have not seen them, but I understand that my colleagues here are looking to get information about residences of voters in New York City. Now, on a
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

motion to quash the subpoena -- which I believe we would like to bring with respect to these subpoenas ~~ the standard is whether the requested information is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry. As far as

I know, there is no allegation in this case that certain voters do not reside in New York City. There's no allegation, so I'm

not clear what relevancy is of the data from homes in New York City. The issue here -~

and I've addressed this issue in a number of cases, this dual residency issue. The Court

of Appeals has talked about dual residence. The Third Department, Second Department, many -- all Departments have talked about dual residency. It is a settled legal

principal that a voter can choose to vote where they had a real residence, not a sham residence. Now, I am not under the

impression in this case that there's any

21 22 23 24 25

allegation that the voters in these five counties have listed a sham residence for purposes of voting in one of these five counties as far as I know. There's no

allegation of non-residence in one of these

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

five counties, and that is the only time that the Court can look behind the issuance of the absentee ballot. We have a Court of

Appeals case, and we have two Appellate Division cases, a solid ruling that the only time you can look at the absentee ballot and the issuance of the ballot is when there are allegations of non- residency. Wow, I don't see what the relevancy is to data from New York City when that is not what's being contested in this case. What is being contested is do the voters in Ulster, Greene, Montgomery, Schenectady, Albany have a residence in those five counties? If the opposing Counsel want to

try to seek subpoenas that show that or show a lack of that residence then that would be relevant to this case. As it is, their

subpoenas are seeking irrelevant, non-probative information about a dual residence that is not in issue in this case, and the Supreme Court has no authority to look at that issue in the context of a 16-106 proceeding, and I would like to get

the Court's permission to bring a motion to

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

quash tomorrow with respect to these subpoenas. THE COURT: You may bring any

appropriate application including a motion to quash, and we will hear that expeditiously. MR. LEWIS: Mr. Lewis/ anything further? Ms . 0'Reefe missed the

entire argument this morning that explained exactly how all this fits in. The only

thing missing are the subpoenas seeking to establish that the voters have a residency, not a dual residency as she just said it but/ rather/ residency under the Election Law not in the counties in which they claim/ and the indicia of that residency is proven by the material from the counties in which we've reached out for data on the basis of what we understand to be in their records and/ finally/ she missed this morning the sham language which in People versus Ohara is specifically not repeated in Stewart versus Chautauqua Board of Elections in which they heard residency challenge to a voter who casted -- who tried to cast a ballot on the basis that she lived in dual
KIM K. NETH&WAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

places/ but the Court finds that one of the dual places where she sought to vote wasn't sufficient under the Election Law to be residency. That's what we're pursuing. The

law allows us to do it.

The law actually --

we rely on the Stewart case in the Court of Appeals that wasn't cited in Mr. Hoare's papers to the Court. It only cited the

Appellate Division case, and we're perfectly willing to give Miss O'Keefe a copy of our memorandum of law to catch her up. Your

Honor, the Stewart case clearly held that the woman did not have a residence in one of the counties. She was claiming she had ties

to the county/ but the proof showed she did not have a residence. There's only three You

qualifications to vote in New York.

have to be a US citizen/ you have to be 18, and you have to have lived 30 days in the election district. If Mr. Lewis wants to

show that some of the voters in these five counties has not lived for 30 days in one of these counties then that is where his proof lies. You do not show a lack of residence

in one county by showing a residence in

KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

another county.

The courts have made it i

clear you can have two, three/ four or, like John McCain, seven houses, and you can pick where you want to vote, and in this instance thereTs no allegations of non-residency being made. THE COURT: All right. So I will

entertain any appropriate -MR. LEWIS: were objections. going on a bit. Judge, here it is. There

This process has been It's a little late to come

in and take a position like that when in fact the opposite is the case, and with regard to the issue of residence and John McCain, and the voter in Stewart -- it's pretty clear that if the voter, for example, is registered in New York City to vote and registered in Ulster there might be a sufficient question about where they can vote. We have information about voters

registered in New York City that re-register in Albany because they've been told to do so so they can vote here. We have issues that

the Court's going to face regarding how people use what purports to be their dual
KIM K. NETHAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

residence and where they get not only all their mail and everything else but, rather, whether in fact the residence claimed in the county are sufficient to justify the issuance of a ballot under the Stewart case. THE COURT: So I expect I'll hear more Also, I want to

about this as we proceed.

remind the parties with regard to subpoenas for any State agency or subdivision they need to be given an opportunity to be heard with regard to the subpoenas. You can make

that returnable immediately prior to the return date on the subpoenas or, if you have time, sufficient time, you may make it returnable earlier, so I expect that we may hear some of that tomorrow. All right. So

we're adjourned to tomorrow at 9:30.

I'll

give you my copies of the subpoenas I signed on Friday to review/ and I'll ask for these back, and I'll ask to you swap subpoena information. MR. HOARE: I would just request,

Mr. Lewis, if you could email this, what we're going to be working off of. MR. LEWIS: You've now exceeded my
KIM K. NETBAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

technical capability. THE COURT: If it Is something your

team can email to the other side that would be appreciated. MR. HOARE: It would just help us

follow this if this is in fact the form we're going to use. THE COURT: I would ask you each to do

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

that If you can. That may mean that we can use your spread sheet. It may be

advantageous to you. If not/ we'll deal with what we have. So I'll see you on the

subpoena Issue shortly after you've had a chance to review. Thank you.

(Whereupon/ the matter was adjourned.)

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

KIM K. NETBAWAY MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

I, KIM K. NETHAWAY, OFFICIAL SUPREME COURT

11 REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NEW 12 YORK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND 13 ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHIC NOTES AS TAKEN 14 BY ME OF THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
KIM K. NETHAWAY

KIM K. NETHAWAY SUPREME COURT REPORTEJ

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPREME COURT 518 853-8161

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

. . __ _,
.. ._

.._.

In the Matter of GEORGE A. AMEDORE, JR., Petitioner, Movant, Appellant, -againstGREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, JAMES WALSH, and EVELYN AQUILA, COMMISSIONERS constituting The New York State Board of Elections; and JAMIE M. DUCHESSI and TERRANCE J. SMITH Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Montgomery County, and C. VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Ulster Count}', and THOMAS J. BURKE and BRENT BOGARDUS Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Greene County, and MATTHEW J. CLYNE and RACHEL L. BLEDI Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Albany County, and BRIAN QUAIL and ART BRASSARD Commissioners, constituting The Board of Elections For Schenectady County, and MICHAHL J. AMATO, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and The Sheriffs Department of Montgomery County PAUL VAN BLARCUM, Sheriff of Ulster County, and The Sheriffs Department of Ulster County GREGORY R. SEELY, Sheriff of Greene County, and The Sheriffs Department of Greene County CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County, and The Sheriffs Department of Albany County DOMINIC D'AGOSTINO, Sheriff of Schenectady Count}', and The Sheriffs Department of Schenectady Count}' CECILIA F. TKACZYK, Candidate for the New York State Senate 46th Senate District Respondents, Respondents, Respondents

INDEX # 20I2-S37

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH STAY & AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A STAY

DAVID L. LEWIS, ESQ LEWIS & FIORE 225 BROADWAY, SUITE 3300, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007