# Coto v. New York City Board of Elections

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 8, 1996 · 101 F.3d 803

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6943514

## Case

- **Full name:** Dinorah COTO David Fernendez Ann Gandolfo Robert Moore Anna Moore Louis Campbell Luciano Navarro Susan Dougherty William Hinckley and Robert DiCarlo, Candidate for the Republican Nomination for State Senator from the 23rd Senate District v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Paul Mejias, President Frederick Umane, Secretary Weyman A. Carey Douglas Kellner Ferdinand C. Marchi Seymour Sheldon Ron D'Angelo Gertrude Strohm Vincent Velella Kathleen M. Wagner, Commissioners and Daniel DeFrancesco, Executive Director, John Gangemi, Candidate for the Republican Nomination for State Senator from the 23rd Senate District Guy Molinari and Joseph Silva
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** October 8, 1996
- **Citations:** 101 F.3d 803
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Oakes
- **Judges:** Altimari, Mahoney, Oakes
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6943514

## Opinion text

OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur, bound as I am by the, precedent of Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.1970), although the irregularities here were so gross as to call the flat statements in that precedent into serious question. However, to erode Powell , even in cases as Jraught with irregularity as these, would put the federal courts in the extremely difficult position of monitoring state primaries as to the extent of election law violations, cases which would involve serious time constraints, difficult questions of cause and effect, and extremely complicated questions of remedy, including whether to order a reeleetion overall or only in certain districts, etc. Thus, though I was initially inclined to agree with District Judge Trager that the facts of these cases and the related cases went beyond the bounds of simple irregularity, on further reflection they still fall short of the intentional deprivation called for by Powell and progeny. Therefore, I am required, reluctantly, to concur.
I cannot help but note my view, however, that the only “abuse” of Judge Trager’s discretion was his hesitanee to construe our precedent- as strictly as my colleagues did, and I now do. Indeed, I thought he took a very sensible, restrained, and practical approach to an almost impossible series of bureaucratic and official errors resulting in the deprivation of important, fundamental voting rights. Let us hope that a repetition of such will , not again occur. Were it to do so, it would, I think, invite this court to look anew at the Powell approach.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6943514. Public record. Not legal advice.