A proposal to let Columbia County voters decide whether to establish the position of a full-time elected executive will not appear on the November ballot after a state judge dismissed a legal challenge on procedural grounds.
State Supreme Court Justice Richard Mott’s decision, issued Wednesday, Aug. 6, concluded the case was filed without naming required parties within the legal time frame. The ruling ends a monthslong effort by Columbia County Forward, a civic group backed by Democratic donors, to change the county’s form of government.
Three residents — Thomas Fisher, Caitlin Gilligan, and Jim Miller, all registered Republicans — filed objections to the petition in July. Columbia County Board of Supervisors Clerk Kelly Baccaro cited the filings to strike more than 1,500 signatures, rejecting the referendum request on July 3.
At court hearings later that month, all three testified they had not written the documents they submitted. Fisher and Miller said they received completed objection forms from Baccaro. Gilligan said she was handed documents directly by Board Chair Matt Murell at the county office building, with Baccaro present. Petitioners argued this coordination rendered the objections legally defective.
The case, Hodge v. Columbia County Board of Supervisors, was brought by Samuel Hodge, chair of the Columbia County Democratic Committee. Mott dismissed it on procedural grounds, finding Hodge failed to name the three objectors as respondents within three business days of Baccaro’s decision, as required by state law.
Although the objectors were later added and appeared in court, Mott ruled Hodge could not meet the requirements of New York’s “relation-back doctrine,” which allows late-added parties to be treated as if they were included from the start, because he offered no proof the omission was a genuine mistake. The decision did not address the allegation that county officials were involved in preparing the objections.
“Today, a court struck down our popular, grassroots referendum… not because it lacked merit, not because it lacked public support, but because of procedural objections and non-substantive legal arguments,” Hodge said.
Murell, in a press release, proposed creating a county administrator or manager appointed by the Board instead of electing a county executive. “I am recommending the formation of a committee to look into the development of a county administrator/manager position/office, working for and appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and not an elected county president,” he said.
Hodge said the decision left his team no time to appeal before the ballot deadline. “This judge making this hyper-technical ruling has really disrupted our ability to go to the appellate courts and get a decision in a timely fashion as to the merits of the petition,” he said. “We’ve just run out of time.”
Murell also criticized the organizers, saying they “used the wrong petition in the first place” and noting the voter registration history of two key supporters. He argued the proposed change would “bring added taxpayer cost and… eliminate the role of town supervisors in county government.”
Hodge said he plans to file a complaint against Baccaro and Murell with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act — a federal law that bars most federal, state, and local government employees from engaging in partisan political activity while performing their official duties or using government resources. It is unclear whether the law applies to the county officials he has accused of breaking the law.
Columbia County is one of just four counties in New York still governed solely by a Board of Supervisors — 23 town supervisors whose votes are weighted by population, lead by an appointed chairperson. Supporters of reform say the system is outdated; opponents say it avoids adding another layer of government.
If and when the referendum effort will be revived remains unclear.