SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of an Article 78 Proceeding FRANCES A.

KNAPP, As Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Index No.

-against-

ERIK J. HAIGHT, As Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X Upon reading and filing the attached Petition of Frances A. Knapp, the Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner, verified on the 30th day of September, 2011, the Affirmation of Gilbert J. West Sr, Esq. sworn to on the 30th day of September, 2011, and all proceedings heretofore had herein, all of which are attached hereto, LET THE RESPONDENT herein show cause before the Term of this Court to be held in and for the County of Dutchess at the Courthouse located at 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, New York on the _______ day of _______________, 2011 at ______ oclock in the _____noon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why a judgment should not be made directing the Respondent Erik J. Haight be permanently restrained, whether through individual action and through directives to staff members under his control, and through directives to others as the Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner, Unilateral action including but not limited to: A. Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot,

B. Taking addresses where multiple people are registered, allegedly working in conjunction with the Dutchess County Republican County Committee and Republican County Committee people to challenge the voter registrations. Then having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters. Then having republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican and obtaining majority vote to proceed on such inquiry, C. Having a Republican town Committee or any Republican staff member send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door, D. Unilaterally spending over $1,100 of county tax dollars on postage to carry out his actions, E. Taking original absentee applications into his private office under his control without a bi-partisan presence and marking notations on voters original applications not agreed by the Democratic Commissioner, F. Refusing to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions, G. Requiring absentee applicants to show Identification. together with paying the Petitioners attorney fees and costs and with such other and further relief as to this Court may seems just and proper, it is further ORDERED, that pending a hearing on this matter that Erik J. Haight, whether through individual action and through directives to staff members under his control, and through

directives to others as the Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner, be temporarily restrained from: Unilateral action including but not limited to: A. Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot, B. Taking addresses where multiple people are registered, allegedly working in conjunction with the Dutchess County Republican County Committee and Republican County Committee people to challenge the voter registrations. Then having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters. Then having republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican and obtaining majority vote to proceed on such inquiry, C. Having a Republican town Committee or any Republican staff member send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door, D. Unilaterally spending over $1,100 of county tax dollars on postage to carry out his actions, E. Taking original absentee applications into his private office under his control without a bi-partisan presence and marking notations on voters original applications not agreed by the Democratic Commissioner, F. Refusing to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions, G. Requiring absentee applicants to show Identification.

ORDERED, that sufficient cause appearing therefore, let service of a copy of this Order together with supporting papers upon the Respondent above named by delivering a copy of the same addressed to Erik J. Haight at his office deliverable to himself or any republican staff member currently working, located at the Dutchess County Board of Elections located at 47 Cannon Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, on or before the _____day of ________, 2011 be deemed sufficient service thereof, and it is further ORDERED, that answering affidavits, if any, must be submitted by the Respondent to the attorney for the Petitioner on or before the _____ day of ___________, 2011 and reply affidavits replying to any answering affidavits must be submitted by the attorney for the Petitioner to the answering Respondent or Respondents attorney on or before the ____ day of _________, 2011.

DATED:________________

ENTER

_______________________ J.S.C.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of an Article 78 Proceeding FRANCES A. KNAPP, As Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner Petitioner, VERIFIED PETITION Index No.

-against-

ERIK J. HAIGHT, As Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The Verified Petition of FRANCES A. KNAPP, on personal knowledge or information and belief affirms the following to be true, under the penalties of perjury, and respectfully shows to the Court the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an Article 78 Proceeding brought to challenge the illegal, unilateral acts of Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner, Erik J. Haight, by which he in his role of Republic Elections Commissioner sent mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot. This letter was sent out on Dutchess County Board of Elections stationary, with only Respondents name and signature. Such letter failed to have Petitioners name, nor was it done with Petitioners knowledge, consent nor legally required majority action. 2. Additionally, Republican Elections Commissioner is acting in an illegal unilateral

fashion by taking addresses where multiple people are registered, allegedly working in conjunction with the Republican County Committee members to challenge voter registrations. Commissioner Haight is next unilaterally having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters. Next Commissioner Haight has republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican. 3. Next Commissioner Haight had the Republican town of Washington Committee send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door, to not be alarmed. Consequently, Commissioner Haight through the Sheriffs office, generated reports that significantly cast doubt as to whether or not these individuals will be able to vote. There is a serious risk of voter purging should these unilateral actions continue. Additionally, Commissioner Haight fails to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions. 4. Additionally, Commissioner Haight is egregiously misusing Board of Elections money, and consequently tax payers money. The unilateral actions as just described, required Commissioner Haight to spend over $1,100 of postage to send out such unilateral, non bipartisan mailings. Court intervention is required to halt such misappropriation of tax payers dollars. 5. Lastly, Commissioner Haight is acting unilaterally in review of absentee applications. When one arrives into the Dutchess County Board of Elections he takes it into his office without a bi-partisan presence, marking it with notations on the voters original application not agreed to by the Democratic Commissioner. Additionally, if Respondent or his Deputy are not in, then the

Voter must wait until he returns for fear of application denial. Under New York State Election Law, such unilateral action cannot stand. One commissioner, when there are two within the Board, cannot reject an absentee application. A majority vote can only invalidate an application, as New York sides with the voter in that instance. Additionally, voters that come in for an absentee application, Commissioner Haight requires them to show Identification, which is a unilateral act, and invalid on its own under Election Law. PARTIES 6. Petitioner, Frances A. Knapp, is the Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner. 7. Respondent, Erik J. Haight, is the Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner. JURISDICTION 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to Civil Practice Laws and Rules 7803.

BACKGROUND 9. Petitioner, Frances A. Knapp, is the Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner. Erik J. Haight, is the Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner. Jointly, they are tasked with the responsibility of making documents and information conveniently available. They additionally, are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring each and every vote is counted, the legitimacy of the ability to vote, and subsequent voting results. 10. Inherent in a democratic form of government, that truly lets the voice of the people be

heard is a checks and balance system. This ensures a voice, a vote and equality to all registered voters in Dutchess County. Hence, the Elections Commissioners are held to the requirement of Subdivision 2 of section 3-212 of the Election Law in that: All actions of the board shall require a majority vote of the commissioners prescribed by law for such board. 11. For too long, Commissioner Haight has unilaterally acted, putting the future voice and vote of the people at risk. For too long Commissioner Haight has displayed a pattern of secrecy, when the law requires transparency. For too long Commissioner Haight has unilaterally targeted valid voters and directed his staff members in a non bi-partisan format to challenge such voters. If his actions dont stop, such valid voters run the risk of being silenced. For too long, Commissioner Haight has misused Board of Election funds, to pay for postage, to further his unilateral acts. These unilateral acts cannot continue. 12. Frances A. Knapp, has pursued every action possible, to prevent litigation, but her attempts have been futile. Commissioner Haight will not cease his unilateral ways. Court action is the only means necessary for Commissioner Knapp to ensure, Commissioner Haights unilateral ways cease, and the voters of Dutchess County keep their constitutionally protected voice. The two Memos Commissioner Knapp has sent to Commissioner Haight, were disregarded and not responded to. THE RESPONDENTS ACTIONS ARE ILLEGAL 13. Subdivision 2 of section 3-212 of the Election Law provides: All actions of the board shall require a majority vote of the commissioners prescribed by law for such board. 14. On or about August 2011, Petitioner was advised by her staff that mail was being returned to the Dutchess County Board of Elections. Upon opening of one of such letters, Petitioner was shocked to see that Commissioner Haight unilaterally was mailing letters to

permanent absentee voters, on his own advising that they needed to update their absentee ballot application. (See Exhibit 1). The fact that Commissioner Haight sent this letter out violated 3212(2). In addition Commissioner Haight violated Election Law, as permanent absentee ballots are not required to be updated. It is clear that Commissioner Haight is hopeful that an absentee voter, accidentally fills out the form incorrectly, making the voter ineligible to vote. Commissioner Haight is acting unilaterally illegally with a secondary goal of suppressing votes. 15. On or about August 2011, Petitioner discovered that Commissioner Haight was acting in violation of 3-212(2) by unilaterally directing investigation and subsequent challengers to voters in Millbrook, N.Y. (See Exhibit 2) Additionally, Commissioner Haight acted as a Witness, as well as an additional republican staff member and City of Beacon Republican Chair, Andrew Forman. Such challenge does not have the legally required bi-partisan witnessing. Legally required would be a party member of both Republican and Democrat affiliation to review, initial and sign off on such voter challenge. In all of these 34 challenges the challenger was Republican, and both witnesses were Republican, one of which was the Respondent. Such action in having all republicans, and no democrats witness such post registration challenge affidavit, violates 3-212(2) of New York State Election Law. Such act required a majority, which it failed to do, and such action was unilateral and illegal in nature. 16. On or about August 2011, Petitioner discovered that Commissioner Haight was acting in violation of 3-212(2) by unilaterally directing investigation and subsequent challengers to voters in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., at the Family Partnership center. (See Exhibit 3). The Family Partnership center, typically is utilized for the homeless and those in need of services. Homeless people, have a constitutional right to vote. Additionally, Commissioner Haight acted as Witness, as well as an additional republican Catherine F. Durland, who happens to be the Town of Union

Vale Republican Chair. Such challenge does not have the legally required bi-partisan witnessing. Legally required would be a party member of both Republican and Democrat affiliation to review, initial and sign off on such voter challenge. In all of these nearly 70 challenges the challenger was Republican, and both witnesses were Republican, one of which was the Respondent. Such action in having all republicans, and no democrats witness such post registration challenge affidavit, violates 3-212(2) of New York State Election Law. Such act required a majority, which it failed to do, and such action was unilateral and illegal in nature. 17. The unilateral action in witnessing voter challenges doesnt stop there. Egregiously it continued, when Petitioner on or about August 2011 discovered Respondents involvement in challenges to 270 Main Street, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. As seen in (Exhibit 4), a Dutchess County Board of Elections, summary voter master list was generated. Such list was generated as shown in the top left corner on August 18, 2011 at 6:38 p.m. Such time is well after the Board of Elections closed. Upon information and belief Petitioner believes the handwriting to be that of the Deputy to the Respondent. The very next day a Republican Anita Cillo a City of Poughkeepsie Republican Committee woman entered the Board of Election and filed a voter challenge. 18. Such voter challenge by Anita Cillo is yet another example of Commissioner Haight acting in violation of 3-212(2) by unilaterally directing investigation and subsequent challenges to voters in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., at the 270 Main Street, Poughkeepsie, New York address. Commissioner Haight acting as Witness, as well as an additional republican Catherine F. Durland, the Town of Union Vale Republican Chair, does not have the legally required bipartisan witnessing. Legally required would be a party member of both Republican and Democrat affiliation to review, initial and sign off on such voter challenge. In all of these nearly

30 challenges the challenger was Republican, and both witnesses were Republican, one of which was the Respondent. Such action in having all republicans, and no democrats witness such post registration challenge affidavit, violates 3-212(2) of New York State Election Law. Such act required a majority, which it failed to do, and such action was unilateral and illegal in nature. 19. Additionally Respondent is in violation of New York State Election Law 3-212(2) when an absentee voter application comes into the Board of Elections Respondent takes such application into his office and reviews it behind closed doors, without a Democratic staff member or the Democratic Commissioners consent. Additionally, when Respondent or his deputy are not at the Board of Elections Respondent has advised his staff members to not issue an application. Both actions are impressible unilateral action. A bi-partisan review is required by election law. Such review by Respondent violates that provision. Additionally, Respondent is impermissibly acting under the directive that he and his staff can reject an absentee application. Election law clearly sides with the voter in absentee challenges in that 1 commissioner cannot reject an absentee application, two commissioners or a majority in this case are required to reject such absentee application. Respondents unwillingness to conduct a bi-partisan review, directive to see Identification for an absentee application, and directive to not issue an application unless he is present, are all illegal unilateral actions, that if not stopped will result in voter suppression. 20. Petitioner has in her possession (See Exhibit 5), receipts of exorbitant postage fees, paid by the Dutchess County Board of Elections, that were used by Respondent to facilitate his unilateral actions. Such postage fees on illegal activities must cease in order to safeguard Board of Elections budget, and taxpayers money. 21. Petitioner has attempted to cure the Respondents actions by sending

Memorandums to the Respondent. (See Exhibit 6). Because Respondent failed to cure his behavior, and failed to respond to such Memorandum, Petitioner has no other alternative but to institute legal action. 22. That the Petitioner has no other remedy at law or in equity, and no previous application for the relief herein sought or similar relief has been made. 23. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully request that this Court issue an order

directing that the Respondent Erik J. Haight, Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner be permanently restrained from: Unilateral action including but not limited to:

A. Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot, B. Taking addresses where multiple people are registered, allegedly working in conjunction with the Dutchess County Republican County Committee and Republican County Committee people to challenge the voter registrations. Then having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters. Then having republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican and obtaining majority vote to proceed on such inquiry, C. Having a Republican town Committee or any Republican staff member send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door, D. Unilaterally spending over $1,100 of county tax dollars on postage to carry out his actions,

E. Taking original absentee applications into his private office under his control without a bi-partisan presence and marking notations on voters original applications not agreed by the Democratic Commissioner, F. Refusing to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions, G. Requiring absentee applicants to show Identification. And,

the payment of Petitioners attorney fees and further relief as this Court may seem just and proper, including but not limited to continued jurisdiction over this matter for a timeframe to be determined by the court in the event the Respondent refuses to cease his unilateral actions. Dated: September ____, 2011 Poughkeepsie, NY _________________________________ Frances A. Knapp Dutchess County Elections Commissioner Sworn before me this ____ day of September 2011

______________________ Notary Public

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of an Article 78 Proceeding FRANCES A. KNAPP, ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION As Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner Petitioner, Index No.

-against-

ERIK J. HAIGHT, As Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Gilbert J. West, Sr. an attorney duly licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury and says: 1. I am the attorney for Petitioner, Frances A. Knapp, and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The dispute arises as a result of the Respondent engaging in a pattern of unilateral activities. Such unilateral activities include: Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot. Additionally, Respondent engaged in taking addresses where multiple people are registered, and worked in conjunction with the Republican County Committee Members to challenge voter registrations. Respondent allegedly had republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican all without a majority vote to pursue such investigation. 3. Additionally, Respondent had a Republican Town of Washington Committee member

and Republican staff members send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door. Respondent refused to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions. Respondent also spent excessive postage to send out such unilateral, non bi-partisan mailings. Respondent, has also been unilaterally requiring absentee applicants to show identification when requesting an application, and requiring himself or his deputy be present when submitting such application. 4. The instant Article 78 Proceeding seeks a Court order permanently enjoining the Respondent, from individually or through directives as the Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner from illegally engaging in unilateral actions. Election law clearly prohibits unilateral actions an Elections Commissioner, when there are two present in the Board of Elections. When there are two Elections Commissioners, a majority vote is required to take action. Commissioner Haights unilateral acts are illegal on their face, and if not stopped could lead to the secondary consequence of voter suppression. PETITIONER HAS CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING SUIT 5. Capacity concerns a litigants power to appear and bring its grievance before the court. Silver v. Pataki, 730 N.Y.S. 2d 482 (2001). Capacity to sue may be expressly granted in enabling legislation or it may be inferred from review of the entitys statutory functions or responsibilities. Graziano v. County of Albany, 3 N.Y. 3d 475, 479 (NY Court of Appeals, 2004). 6. Standing involves a determination of whether the party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to cast the dispute in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. Manhattan v. Schaffer, 84 N.Y.2d 148 (1994). A plaintiff must show injury in fact, that the plaintiff will actually be harmed by the challenged action. Next, the plaintiff must

fall within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted. Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y. 3d 207 (2004). 7. Pursuant to Election Law 3-204, Elections Commissioners are appointed by the county legislative body based on certificates of party recommendation filed by the chairman or secretary of the county committee of the appropriate political party. Such commissioner performs two distinct statutory functions, he assists his co-commissioner in the administration of the Board and he safeguards the equal representation rights of his party. Graziano at 480. 8. A Commissioner while suing to safeguard the equal representation rights of his party has capacity to sue. Supra. Petitioners capacity to sue to vindicate political interests grounded in the language of the Constitution and the Election Law is inherent in petitioners unique role as guardian of the rights of his party and must be implied from the constitutional and statutory requirement of equal representation. Supra. This right ensures an appropriate balance required for a fair administration of elections. 9. When a bipartisan balance is not maintained, the public interest is affected. A concrete injury is suffered by the political party. When a commissioner files a claim to assure equal representation on behalf of his or her political party, Election Law 3-212(2) is not implicated. Id. at 481. Allowing unilateral action by Respondent would result in unequal representation on the Board, by not having a bi-partisan review of petitions, ballots, letters and challenges. These injuries are representative of a created unequal political representation, stating an injury in fact that satisfies the standing prong.

RESPONDENT MUST BE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED FROM UNILATERAL ACTIVITY 10. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor (see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862; Coinmach Corp. v Alley Pond Owners Corp., 25 AD3d 642, 643). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo and prevent the dissipation of property that could render a judgment ineffectual. Ruiz v. Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 486; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604. 11. Petitioner will adequately show in the paragraphs to follow, that there is a strong chance of likelihood on the merits, given the clear multiple violations of Election Law 3-212(2). Additionally, Respondent failing to cease such unilateral activities could potentially subject to large amounts of voter suppression, if his unilateral challenges, and secrecy arent immediately stopped. Lastly, Respondent will not be harmed if his unilateral actions are ordered to stop, pending the litigation of this matter. Should the Court deny the ultimate application of the Petitioner, Respondent has sufficient time prior to the General Election for further investigation. RESPONDENTS UNILATERAL ACTIONS VIOLATE ELECTION LAW 12. The object of elections is to ascertain the popular will and not to thwart it. The object of election laws is to secure the rights of duly qualified electors, and not to defeat them. Statutory regulations are enacted to secure freedom of choice and to prevent fraud, and not by technical obstructions to make the right of voting insecure and difficult. Hirsh v. Wood, 148 NY 142. 13. The intent that Boards of Elections shall be bipartisan and when composed of two

persons one shall be designated from each of the two most popular political parties, is revealed by the Constitution and legislation under N.Y. Const., art II, 8; Election Law 30 subd.1., Conlin v. Kisiel, 35 A.D. 2d 423. 14. The court will intervene at times to settle a controversy at the Board of Elections, as the court will determine the controversy to prevent a complete breakdown of the public service performed by the Board of Elections, and the consequent disfranchisement of the voters. Ahern v. Board of Supervisors, 7 A.D. 2d 538. 15. All Board actions require a majority vote, Election Law 3-212(2), Matter of Bridgham v. Tutunjian, 84 AD2d 853, Lenihan v. Blackwell, 209 A.D. 2d 1048, Edwards v. Paterson, 715 F. Supp. 2d 431 (2010). Accordingly, a county board of elections, that has only two election commissioners, requires unanimity to take any action. Buhlmann v. Wilson, 96 Misc. 2d 616 (1978). 14. Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot, is clearly an action by the Board. Commissioner Haight failed to obtain majority vote, and approval making such conduct an impermissible unilateral action. Such unilateral action has in fact caused responding voters, fear that their vote will be suppressed. (See Exhibit 7). 15. It is constitutionally permissible for a board of elections to subject categories of people likely to include transients to an additional level of inquiry pursuant to Election Law Section 5104(2). Section 5-104 does not require boards of elections to administer such additional inquiries. The statute merely lists a number of factors which a board may consider. In order for a board to initiate an additional form of inquiry, it must affirmatively decide to do so by majority

vote of the commissioners. Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 329 (US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1986.) 15. Williams v. Salerno, clears dictates that the actions performed by Respondent in the Town of Millbrook, The Family Partnership Center, and at the Address referred to as the Thrifty cash checking center shall be declared an abuse of power. Election Law 5-104(2), suggests an additional inquiry may be considered by the Board. This additional inquiry is not required, therefore ordering such inquiry would constitute an Action by the Board. Clearly stated in Election Law 312-2(2), any Board action requires majority vote. Commissioner Haight acted unilaterally in such additional inquiry by either proceeding with such action without Commissioner Knapps consent, or knowledge. Such action must be declared invalid by this honorable court as it violates the law. 16. Respondent sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot is egregious unilateral action, violating Election Law 3-212(2). Such action not only is unilateral, but deceptive as well. Such action was not authorized through a majority vote, in fact such letters were not even provided for the Democratic Commissioner to review. 17. Taking addresses where multiple people are registered, working in conjunction with the Dutchess County Republican County Committee and Republican County Committee people to challenge the voter registrations and having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters, then having republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican and obtaining majority vote to proceed on such inquiry all violate Election Law 3-212(2). Such unilateral

actions by the Respondent, failed to seek and obtain a majority vote. Without a majority, Respondent was not authorized to act. 18. Having a Republican Town of Washington Committee or any Republican staff member, or Republican County committee member send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door violate Election Law 3-212(2). Such challenges are actions by the Board, requiring Majority vote. Making matters worse the Respondent refused to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, and correspondence to the county Sherriffs office. All attempts to hide his unilateral activities. 19. Unilaterally spending over $1,100 of county tax dollars on postage in violation Election Law 3-212(2), to carry out his actions is an egregious abuse of power by the Respondent and must be stopped by this Honorable Court to preserve tax payer money. Additionally, this Honorable Court shall direct that the County not pay these bills for mailing, as it is the Respondents responsibility. 20. Equally disturbing is the Respondent taking original absentee applications into his private office under his control without a bi-partisan presence and marking notations on voters original applications not agreed by the Democratic Commissioner, and requiring absentee applicants to show identification, both of which are actions, requiring a majority vote, and without one violate Election Law 3-212(2).

COURT SHALL DIRECT THE PAYING OF PETITIONERS ATTORNEY FEES 21. The Second Department has consistently upheld awards of attorney fees in election law proceedings brought by a commissioner(s) and against commissioner(s). Matter of Board of

Elections of the County of Westchester v. ORourke, 210 A.D. 2d 402 (2nd Dept 1994). Such case law dictates that an award of counsel fees is appropriate when the county attorney cannot represent the Board of Elections and the lawsuit is a result of a commissioner acting within his or her official duties. This was also addressed in Hill v. County of Sullivan, 14 A.D.3d 744 (3rd Dept 2005). This Court noted counsel fees are appropriate when outside counsel is hired to represent one election commissioner. Specifically, the criteria for an award of attorney fees is triggered when a commissioner, as a municipal officer is acting within his implied authority to employ counsel in the good faith prosecution or defense of an action undertaken in the public interest, and in conjunction with his official duties where the municipal attorney refused to act, or was incapable of or was disqualified from, acting. Id at 746, quoting Cahn v. Town of Huntington, 29 N.Y.2d 451. Additionally, the court noted that a lack of success on the merits does not necessarily preclude an award of fees. 22. It is clear that the County Attorney of Dutchess County, the normal Attorney to represent a member of the Board of Elections, cannot represent an Elections Commissioner against another Elections Commissioner as it would present an impermissible conflict. Petitioner was required to hire outside counsel. The undersigned petitions the court for the payment of attorney fees by the County of Dutchess, pending a fee application, detailing services provided, and approved by this honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully request that this Court issue an order directing that the Respondent Erik J. Haight, Dutchess County Republican Elections Commissioner be permanently restrained from: Unilateral action including but not limited to:

A. Sending mailing to voters on his own stationary, advising permanent absentee voters that they were required to fill out a new application for such ballot, B. Taking addresses where multiple people are registered, allegedly working in conjunction with the Dutchess County Republican County Committee and Republican County Committee people to challenge the voter registrations. Then having members of the Republican Staff prepare challenges to the registered voters. Then having republicans alone challenge the voter registration, rather than bringing it to a bipartisan challenge of a democrat and a republican and obtaining majority vote to proceed on such inquiry, C. Having a Republican town Committee or any Republican staff member send out a unilateral letter to advise the voters, that their voter registration was being challenged, and that a Sheriff may come to their door, D. Unilaterally spending over $1,100 of county tax dollars on postage to carry out his actions, E. Taking original absentee applications into his private office under his control without a bi-partisan presence and marking notations on voters original applications not agreed by the Democratic Commissioner, F. Refusing to provide the Democratic Commissioner with all copies of any voter letters, forms, correspondence to the county sheriffs office related to his unilateral actions, G. Requiring absentee applicants to show Identification. And,

the payment of Petitioners attorney fees and further relief as this Court may seem just and proper, including but not limited to continued jurisdiction over this matter for a timeframe to be determined by the court in the event the Respondent refuses to cease his unilateral actions. Dated: September ____, 2011 Poughkeepsie, NY _________________________________ GILBERT J. WEST SR. ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER P.O. BOX 284 249 MAIN STREET POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. 12602 845-452-5100