A New York State Supreme Court justice presiding in Columbia County is considering whether to reinstate a referendum petition that was thrown out in July after testimony revealed that the legal objections used to invalidate it were not written by the citizens who filed them, but were instead supplied by partisan county officials.
The case, Hodge v. Columbia County Board of Supervisors, stems from a petition filed in June by Columbia County Forward, a civic group backed by Democratic donors. The petition sought to place a question on the November ballot asking voters whether to create the office of an elected county executive — a change that would reshape the structure of county government.
After the petition was submitted, three residents filed formal objections. Clerk of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors Kelly Baccaro, citing those filings, invalidated more than 1,500 signatures and rejected the petition on July 3.
On July 22, Justice Richard Mott denied the County’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against them and ruled that the three objectors must be named in the suit and appear in court.
At hearings held Tuesday and Thursday in Hudson, all three objectors — Thomas Fisher, Jim Miller (Miller is the Ancram Highway Superintendent), and Caitlin Gilligan, each a registered Republican with ties to party politics — testified that they neither authored the documents they submitted nor fully read through them.
Two objectors, Fisher and Miller, said they received completed objection forms from Board of Supervisors Clerk Kelly Baccaro. Gilligan said her documents were handed to her to sign directly from Board Chair Matt Murrell at the county office building at 401 State Street, with Baccaro also present.
“There is complete unity between the positions taken by the office of the clerk and those of the objectors,” petitioners’ attorney Joshua Oppenheimer told the court.
Fisher, a Greenport resident, testified that he had asked Baccaro to notify him when the petition was submitted so he could file an objection. “I’ve known the clerk for many years,” he said. He added that she contacted him once the petition was filed and, when he visited her office, handed him prepared objections to sign.
Fisher confirmed that he had not written the documents and said they were drafted by an attorney, though he could not recall the attorney’s name.
Baccaro testified that she contacted outside legal counsel before any objections were filed, and that rather than conducting an independent review herself, she relied on that counsel after the objections were submitted.
The petitioners assert that Baccaro’s office acted beyond its legal scope of responsibility. They claim that Baccaro was required to conduct a prima facie review of the alternative county government law petition and ensure that each signature on the petition came from a registered voter in the county, based on voter registration records.
Under New York state law, residents may petition for a public referendum on certain structural changes to county government.
Petitioners contend that the coordination between elected officials and objectors constitutes improper partisan interference in a citizen-initiated process. They also allege that Baccaro’s July 3 rejection letter had been prepared in advance and that their 259-page rebuttal to the objections was ignored.
Samuel Hodge, chair of the Columbia County Democratic Committee who filed the suit against Baccaro and the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, testified that after a hearing on the petition’s validity, Baccaro handed him a printed rejection letter in a room without a printer, reinforcing concerns that the outcome had been predetermined.
Columbia County is one of only four counties in the state without either an elected executive or an appointed county administrator. It is currently governed by a 23-member Board of Supervisors composed of town supervisors. The Board’s chair is selected from among its members by a vote of the supervisors.
Reform advocates say the current system lacks transparency and diminishes representation for smaller towns. Proponents of the current system have argued against what they perceive as an additional layer of government.
Justice Richard Mott has ordered petitioners to submit final legal arguments by 3 p.m. Friday, Aug. 8, with the Board of Supervisors’ response due by noon Monday, Aug. 11. A ruling is expected later this month.
If the petition is reinstated, the referendum could appear on the general election ballot in November.
Nice one!