Wettje to Appeal Rulings on Orangetown Votes

The 2013 Orangetown Supervisor election is not yet.

Republican challenger Walter Wettje declared his intent to appeal rulings by Acting State Supreme Court Judge Victor Alfieri to toss out some absentee ballots in Orangetown. He called for six remaining absentee ballots to be counted and six more to not be counted. 

Alfieri made his rulings Tuesday and six of the remaining absentee ballots were counted at the Rockland County Board of Elections Wednesday. With those votes, incumbent Democrat Andy Stewart had two more vote than Wettje, so Stewart would retain the office unless the appeals process changes the vote total.

For more on the process through Wednesday, see this report on Patch. 

"We have just finished a five week long post-election process in order to ensure that all valid absentee and provisional ballots were fairly counted in accordance with New York State law," Stewart wrote in a statement sent out Thursday. "This process concluded yesterday when the Board of Elections counted the final unopened absentee ballots, giving me a narrow 2-vote win. While I understand Mr. Wettje's frustration at the outcome of this election (as I would surely have been equally frustrated had I lost by 2 votes) I urge him to withdraw his appeal and allow this election to come to a full and final conclusion."

Wettje said the Notice of Appeal will be filed Friday and he expects the case to be heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department in Brooklyn next week. Rockland County Board of Elections officials and both parties will be in Alfieri's court 11 a.m. Friday as the judge is asked to rule on certification of the results as they stand now.

"I will pursue all necessary legal avenues to overturn (Tuesday's) decision by Acting State Supreme Court Judge Victor Alfieri that denied some Orangetown citizens their right to vote," Wettje said through a statement released Thursday. "Andy Stewart’s legal efforts clearly targeted voters who demonstrated an undeniable intent to vote yet their absentee ballots were disqualified. I will vigorously fight for these ballots to be restored to the count."

Wettje said that ballots from voters who demonstrated their intent to vote were disqualified and that he would fight to see those ballots counted. 

"The disenfranchised voters include a 91-year-old World War II veteran and his 90-year-old wife, who both filled out their ballots correctly, but mistakenly signed each other's envelopes. He fought for our freedom against the German army in France, but his right to vote is now being denied because of a technicality cited by Andy Stewart that isn't consistent with the intent of the law. There are several other similar examples of this in Judge Alfieri's ruling.

"I am greatly appreciative of all the support that I have received from Orangetown residents during this extensive process and I remain committed to ensuring that every legitimate vote is counted. I am confident my appeal will be successful."

Stewart pointed out that Wettje also filed petitions to have votes not counted. 

"It is more than a little hypocritical for Mr. Wettje to accuse me of attempting to disenfranchise voters since the lawsuit he filed, had it been successful, would have prevented over 40 voters from having their ballots counted," Stewart said. "In contrast, my attorney challenged only a dozen ballots that exhibited serious legal defects. 

"Judge Alfieri's decision was impartial and fair to both sides. Of the 54 ballots which my opponent and I were litigating over, the Judge allowed 48 to be counted while rejecting only 6. Mr. Wettje would have the public believe that these ballots were rejected for frivolous reasons, but this is simply not the case. Though Judge Alfieri admitted he was sympathetic to the fact that an innocent mistake could lead to the invalidation of a vote, he explained that state election law and many court precedents were crystal clear, and required him 'to adhere to a strict application of the law when it pertains to the actual election process.' Mr. Wettje's objections might therefore be better directed at the State Legislature which wrote the election law, than at the decision in this case.