A New York court has dismissed an election petition from Todd Sloan, who sought to be a candidate for Congress. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled on August 20, 2026, that Sloan's application was invalid due to issues with serving necessary parties. This ruling affects Sloan's ability to run for the 24th Congressional District in the upcoming November election.
The case, known as Matter of Sloan v. Berger, revolves around Sloan's independent nominating petition, which he filed with the New York State Board of Elections. The petition aimed to declare him as the candidate for an independent group called Upstate. However, the Board of Elections invalidated 1,641 signatures from his petition, leaving him short of the required 3,500 signatures by 23. This led to Sloan filing a legal challenge against the Board's decision.
Sloan's legal journey began when he filed a petition on July 2, 2026, contesting the Board's ruling. He sought to have his application declared valid, but the case quickly became complicated due to issues with how he served the necessary parties. The Board's decision to invalidate his petition was based on the objections raised by Bonnie E. Ross, who was among those challenging Sloan's candidacy.
In response to the Board's findings, Sloan attempted to serve the necessary documents to both the Board of Elections and Ross. However, he faced difficulties in delivering the documents to Ross, who was required to be served as a necessary party due to her objections. The court noted that Sloan's attempts at service were not completed within the required timeframe.
The Appellate Division, which included Judges Garry, Fisher, Powers, Corcoran, and Ryba, upheld the lower court's decision. The court emphasized that under Election Law § 16-102, Sloan was required to complete service on all necessary parties within three business days after the Board's determination. The court stated, "A petitioner raising a challenge under Election Law § 16-102 must commence the proceeding and complete service on all the necessary parties within the period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2)."
The judges pointed out that although Sloan acted quickly to file his petition, he failed to serve Ross in a timely manner. The court explained that the service provisions could not extend the period of limitations for instituting the proceeding. The court ruled that since Ross was not served until after the deadline, the dismissal of the petition was appropriate.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Sloan and his supporters. With the dismissal of his petition, Sloan will not be able to appear on the ballot for the upcoming general election. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in election law cases, particularly regarding the timely service of necessary parties.
This ruling may also have broader implications for other candidates in future elections. It highlights the strict timelines and requirements that candidates must follow when filing petitions and contesting decisions made by election boards. Candidates must ensure that they comply with all procedural requirements to avoid similar pitfalls.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear if Sloan will appeal the court's decision. The ruling does not preclude him from pursuing other legal avenues, but any potential appeal would need to address the same issues regarding service and compliance with election law. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions Sloan may take.