Tioga Downs allows its feelings be known in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters into the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the appropriate challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a blow that is big opponents of this measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least change the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, whom objected towards the language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will likely be described as ‘promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting neighborhood governments to lessen property taxes.’
That ended up being the language that had been approved by the State Board of Elections in July, which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure. The governor is a strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a quantity of compromises and addresses different interests in hawaii to make this type of proposition possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unjust. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points when the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language have been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit had been filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made difference that is little the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would carry on as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can continue moving forward,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been let down by predictably your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge chose to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether the state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ stated a statement by the brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to use an early in the day form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office that did not range from the ‘advocacy language.’
‘Ignoring the attorney general’s recommendation, the Board of Elections changed the neutrally worded casino amendment by adding language to gain voter support,’ Snyder told The ny days.
In the event that measure should pass, it would talk about to seven new casino resorts to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.