A state judge on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit challenging the wording of New York’s casino ballot proposition, ruling the challenge was filed too late and didn’t have legal merit.
The ruling from state Acting Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin clears the way for the referendum to stand as is, with New York voters set to be asked whether to approve up to seven private casinos on Nov. 5.
Brooklyn attorney Eric Snyder had sued the co-chairs of the state Board of Elections earlier this month, claiming the referendum language—which touts the potential for “job growth” and lower taxes from casino revenue—had crossed the line into advocacy and was designed to garner “yes” votes.
But Platkin said the challenge was filed outside of the 14-day statute of limitations. Snyder had also claimed that the state board violated the Open Meetings Law and didn’t have the authority to change the more-neutral language originally proposed by the state Attorney General’s Office; Platkin disagreed.
“The Court concludes that the claim of improper advocacy is barred by the statute of limitations, the claim that the (Board of Elections) exceeded its authority in deviating from the Attorney General’s proposed ballot and abstract language is both untimely and lacking in legal merit, and the Open Meetings claim is conclusively defeated by documentary evidence and otherwise fails to state a viable cause of action,” Platkin wrote.
The state board approved the casino referendum language in late July, though it wasn’t posted on its website until late August.
There was no immediate word whether Snyder would appeal the ruling.