A Manhattan judge on Thursday declined to remove attorney Jim Walden from the New York City mayoral ballot, ruling that the city’s Board of Elections followed state election law when it refused a late request to withdraw his name.
Judge Jeffery H. Pearlman issued the ruling after Walden, who ended his long-shot campaign last week, sued the Board of Elections seeking to have his name struck from the ballot. William Farrington Walden argued in court that leaving his name on the ballot would amount to voter "disenfranchisement." The Board said it had no authority to accept a declination after its statutory deadline.
Pearlman wrote that the Board acted "precisely as written," noting that election rules allow candidate names to be removed before a Sept. 19 printing deadline only in narrow circumstances: if a candidate moves out of state, accepts a judicial nomination or dies. "Here, as the Board of Elections followed the law precisely as written, refusing to accept a declination of candidacy more than 3 months after the deadline for such paperwork, the Court finds that the Board was not arbitrary and capricious," the judge wrote.
During Thursday’s hearing, Walden told the court he had volunteered to relocate to his second home in Connecticut for the duration of the election, a claim the Board disputed. "We don’t have the discretion to remove Mr. Walden from the ballot," Board of Elections attorney Grace Pyun said, telling the court the agency had not received any filing that would indicate a move out of state.
Pearlman pressed Walden on the timing of his actions, saying, "You should have moved to Connecticut." Walden told reporters after the hearing that it was "just common sense" for a withdrawing candidate to have the option to remove his name unless there was a "compelling interest" in keeping it on the ballot.
The dispute comes as the mayoral race heads into the fall. Walden, an attorney and former City Hall hopeful, attracted only minimal support in recent polling, with a New York Times/Siena poll released this week showing him at less than 1 percent. His legal challenge was filed on Wednesday, immediately after he announced he was ending his bid.
The Board of Elections maintained that its interpretation of state election law left it without authority to process a withdrawal outside the statutory window. The agency emphasized the practical constraint of preparing ballots and complying with printing deadlines. Pearlman’s decision left intact the Board’s long-standing practice of limiting post-deadline changes to the specific scenarios spelled out by law.
Legal experts and election officials have said courts are generally reluctant to order administrative agencies to deviate from clear statutory requirements, particularly when deadlines are tied to logistical steps such as ballot printing. The judge’s ruling reflects that deference, finding no legal basis for intervention in the Board’s decision-making.
With Walden’s name remaining on the ballot, election officials said routine preparations for the November contest will continue. The ruling does not affect other candidates or procedural elements of the mayoral election, and the Board said it would move forward with finalizing ballots in accordance with state timelines.