An application to stay enforcement of orders of the Federal
District Court, which -- after holding unconstitutional as applied
a requirement under the New York election law that the cover sheet
of a candidate's designating petition state the number of
signatures in the petition -- directed that the New York City Board
of Elections accept respondents' designating petitions and place
their names on the ballot for the imminent Democratic primary
election in Kings County, is denied under the circumstances of the
case.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, Circuit Justice.
Applicants request that I stay enforcement of two orders of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
concerning tomorrow's Democratic primary election in Kings County,
N.Y. In those orders, the District Court directed the Board of
Elections in the City of New York to accept the designating
petitions of respondents Jefferson and Clark and to place their
names on the Democratic primary ballot.
The underlying litigation arose out of challenges to the
designating petitions of Jefferson and Clark filed with the Board
of Elections. On August 28, 1984, the New York Court of Appeals
held that the petitions were invalid under state law because their
cover sheets overstated the number of signatures in the petitions.
Jefferson and Clark then challenged the constitutionality of the
New York election law's requirement that a designating petition's
cover sheet state the number of signatures in the petition. On
September 6, the District Court held the requirement
unconstitutional as applied. Thus, it ordered that Jefferson's and
Clark's names be placed on the ballot. On September 7, it denied
applicants' motion for a stay.
Page 468 U. S. 1314
Applicants then moved for a stay and for expedited appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Today, the
Second Circuit denied the motion for a stay but granted the motion
for expedited appeal. It scheduled oral argument for the week of
September 24.
This application was filed at approximately 3:30 p. m. today.
Given the little time left for evaluating, before tomorrow's
primary, the questions raised by the application, I am not
persuaded to interfere with the actions of the Second Circuit.
The application for a stay is accordingly denied.
It is so ordered.