The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Guardian Fights Back, Going After Municipalities That Violate First Amendment

Several weeks ago The Westchester Guardian, through its parent corporation, The Guardian News, Inc., began to file civil actions against numerous villages, towns, and cities throughout Westchester County, charging each with various acts, including, but not limited to, their adoption, interpretation, and enforcement of local code provisions governing “Newsracks” on public property in violation of The Guardian’s rights as guaranteed
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. At this point ten such federal complaints have been filed, the first of which was commenced on April 7, against
the Village of Tuckahoe, and several individuals involved in the administration of that village government.

Complaints have also been filed against the Villages of Bronxville, Pelham, Croton-On-Hudson, Larchmont, Briarcliff Manor, and Dobbs Ferry, as well as the Towns of North Salem and Greenburgh, and the City
of Yonkers. Additional actions are contemplated against numerous other municipalities currently violating the law.
The Westchester Guardian, a weekly newspaper, made its debut appearance August 10, 2006. Circulated throughout Westchester County in some 300 distinctive blue distribution boxes, as well as in newsracks in more than 700 professional offices, supermarkets, stationeries, delis, convenience stores, restaurants and other establishments, its readership has more than doubled while faithful to its mission to serve “The People’s Right To Know.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x

THE GUARDIAN NEWS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

-against-

MICHAEL J. MARTINO, individually,
LUIGI MARCOCCIA, individually,
TONY E. SAYEGH, Jr., individually, 07 Civ. ( )
STEVEN A. ECKLOND, individually,
JOHN FITZPATRICK, individually,
SUSAN CIAMARRA, individually, COMPLAINT
ROBERT MASCIANICA, individually,
JOHN D. CAVALLARO, individually,
and the VILLAGE OF TUCKAHOE, Jury Trial Demanded
New York,

Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x

Plaintiff THE GUARDIAN NEWS, INC., by its attorneys Lovett & Gould, LLP, for its complaint respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, proximately resulting from the Defendants’ adoption, interpretation, and enforcement of a local code provision governing “Newsracks” in violation of Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Port Chester Voting Rights Trial In Federal Court
United States Federal District Court, White Plains - Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding

Monday morning, May 21st, the Voting Rights suit brought by the Justice Department through its Civil Rights Division, against the Village of Port Chester for alleged violations in their “at-large election” of village trustees, began in Federal District Court, White Plains.

The Government has contended for some time that the at-large system, as employed by the Village over many years, has effectively prevented the election of any trustee preferred by the Latino population.

The trial is intended to resolve the consolidated claims against the Village of Port Chester, not only of
the Justice Department, represented by the United States Attorney’s Of-fice, but also of Cesar Ruiz, candidate
for trustee in 2001. Mr. Ruiz is represented by attorneys Randolph Mc Laughlin, and Debra Cohen.

The government’s first witness was Dr. Lisa Handley, an election consultant for more than twenty years, and a
recognized expert in racially polarized voting patterns. Dr. Handley was asked to analyze the results in the Village’s recent mayoral election to determine if her prior analysis of voting patterns would change. Handley had analyzed sixteen prior Port Chester elections, and had determined that the candidates preferred by Hispanic voters had been defeated in twelve of the contests.

The government attorney asked, “Have you reached a conclusion?” Dr. Handley responded, “Whites ‘lock-vote’ to defeat Hispanic candidates.” Asked what method she used to draw her conclusions, she indicated that she had analyzed “homogeneous precincts and Spanish-surname registrations.” She declared, “There were special circumstances in the 2007 race for mayor.” She explained there was no Hispanic candidate, and that while
Hispanics voted mostly for Democrat Dennis Pilla, White voters divided between Pilla and his Republican opponent. Additionally, she asserted that because there had been a lot of publicity for the upcoming trial, and the
fact that there was no trustee election, added to the special circumstances.

Judge Robinson broke in, “Let me ask a big picture election question. This election is bad for your thesis, wouldn’t you say?” Handley wasn’t prepared to quite concede the point. The Government offered into evidence the Supplemental Report of Dr. Ronald Gatti, indicating “This is the report commissioned by Defendant
Village of Port Chester.” Mr. Anthony Piscionere, lead attorney for the Village, asked by Judge Robinson if
he had any objection, responded, “I’m in no position to oppose a report we ordered.”

The Government then turned to Dr. Handley and asked, “Do you agree with Dr. Gatti’s conclusion that
Regression Analysis is acceptable for predictive purposes?” Dr. Handley’s response, “Virtually
everyone voted for a candidate,” was quickly ridiculed by Robinson.

The Judge loudly declared, “virtually is a weasel word.” Handley went on to discuss the village election of 2001 in which Cesar Ruiz, a Latino, had run for trustee. She described the voting pattern of Hispanics as having been “single-shot voting.” She explained, “Many Hispanics cast only one vote, when they could have cast two, voting only for Ruiz.”

Attorney McLaughlin, representing Mr. Ruiz, then cross-examined Handley, asking, “Is there any difference between elections that are head-tohead, as opposed to multiple-candidate at-large elections?” Then attempting
to narrow, and clarify his inquiry, McLaughlin asked, “Would it be easier to defeat an Hispanic candidate in a head-to-head, or multiple choice?” Handley responded, “Head-to-head.”