ROCHESTER - The two candidates for Bill Parment's state Assembly seat will be back in court today.
Andrew Goodell's petition against Parment, Nancy Bargar and Democratic Election Commissioner Norman P. Green, among others, will be heard at 10 a.m. by the state's Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Department in Rochester.
The petition was dismissed earlier this month by County Supreme Court Justice James Dillon.
Goodell is the Republican candidate for state Assembly and is seeking to have Bargar's name removed from the Independence Party line on this November's ballot. Ms. Bargar is the Democratic candidate for the 150th District, and was also endorsed by the Independence Party's vacancy committee.
The contention by Goodell and his attorney, Tom Rankin, is that Green had received a document from Parment declining the Independence Party's endorsement and held it for one week - waiting to be certain that the Independence Party would endorse a Democrat and not Goodell. Without an appropriately filed declination from Parment, no one else could hold that third-party line.
So, believing Parment never filed the document, Goodell gave up his attempts to obtain the party's endorsement. The document then later surfaced when the party endorsed Ms. Bargar.
"The law requires these documents be filed with the Board of Elections, not with just one member or the other," Goodell said Friday. "The full board consists of both elections officials, so in this case, the letter was sent to just one of them and was never date and time stamped by the full board, which is a requirement by law. It was never entered into the public record, which is a statutory requirement, and was actually hidden from the other election commissioner until several critical deadlines had passed."
According to Dillon's decision, documents which are appropriately notarized and postmarked on the final day for filing should still be processed by the Board of Elections - despite delays in arrival and questions regarding their appearance.
Quiet for the most part since Goodell filed his petition, Green addressed the allegations made of him following Dillon's decision.
"The only thing that I do have to say is that this was painted as if I did something untoward, something that was underhanded," Green said. "I certainly operated within the same set of ethics that I always have. I've always honored my oath and I'm pretty proud of how I handle myself.
"My biggest disappointment today," Green continued, "is that I didn't get my day in court. I thought I was going to get a chance to testify and explain what really happened from my viewpoint. And as much as Andy is making a big deal about things that stink, I'd say it stinks that he's making a big deal about something that had nothing to do with his petitions, had nothing to do with his filing, had nothing to do with his getting on the ballot. Andy Goodell has a history of making big deals out of little things and this is the state to do it in. There's no doubt about that."
When asked by The Post-Journal if he would like to have his side of the story in print, Green declined as the case has yet to go before the appellate court.