Ballot Challenges, Fraud Allegations, and Judicial Bias Claims Mark Unprecedented Congressional Campaign in New York's 10th District
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — The 2026 Democratic primary for New York's 10th Congressional District was marked not only by the contest between Rep. Dan Goldman and former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, but also by an extensive series of legal challenges brought by candidate Nickie Kane. The litigation raised questions about New York's ballot access laws, judicial procedures, campaign petition practices, and the role of local political organizations in the electoral process.
Kane, a Brooklyn resident, entered the race as a first-time congressional candidate with little fundraising and no campaign staff. According to federal campaign filings, she did not raise enough money to trigger mandatory Federal Election Commission reporting requirements.
Instead of relying on paid consultants, Kane says she personally collected nearly 3,000 petition signatures while simultaneously serving as her own campaign manager, petition circulator, communications director, graphic designer, treasurer, and legal counsel.
"I did almost everything myself," Kane has repeatedly stated throughout the campaign.
Democratic Primary Ballot Challenge
To qualify for the Democratic primary ballot, congressional candidates were required to submit at least 1,250 valid signatures during New York's petitioning period.
Following the filing of her designating petition, objections were submitted to the New York City Board of Elections.
The Board ultimately determined Kane did not have enough valid signatures to remain on the ballot.
Kane challenged that determination in New York Supreme Court, arguing that the Board denied her procedural due process throughout the objection process.
Among her allegations were that she never received the objector's specifications before the Board rendered its decision despite requesting them, preventing her from meaningfully responding to individual objections.
She also alleged that the Board refused to allow her to inspect the original proof of service supporting those objections before making its determination.
According to Kane, subsequent review showed that several signatures originally rejected by the Board were later determined to be valid, including one voter initially listed as deceased.
Lawsuit Alleging Petition Fraud
At approximately the same time objections were filed against Kane's petition, she filed her own Election Law proceeding challenging Brad Lander's designating petition.
The lawsuit alleged multiple violations of New York Election Law, including claims that individuals under the age of 18 participated in collecting petition signatures and that witness statements contained irregularities.
According to Kane, one petition circulator personally acknowledged being under 18 years old. Kane states she photographed the individual and submitted evidence to election officials.
The petition also raised additional allegations regarding petition witnessing and signature collection.
Justice Matthew V. Grieco dismissed the proceeding without reaching the merits of those allegations.
Instead, the court ruled that Kane failed to comply with the service requirements contained in the Order to Show Cause, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Because the dismissal was procedural, the court never determined whether Kane's fraud allegations were substantiated.
Lander's campaign denied wrongdoing during the litigation.
Appeals and Constitutional Challenge
Following dismissal of both election proceedings, Kane pursued appeals through New York's appellate courts before seeking emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court.
Her filings argue that New York's election calendar violates the Due Process Clause because litigation deadlines are compressed into such a short timeframe that meaningful judicial review often becomes impossible before ballots are finalized or elections take place.
Kane also argues that the statutory scheme disproportionately burdens grassroots and self-represented candidates who cannot afford election-law attorneys or professional petition firms.
Among the reforms Kane proposes are:
* Moving petitioning earlier in the election cycle.
* Extending statutory deadlines for election litigation.
* Requiring specifications of objections to be served before Board hearings.
* Creating automatic stays while constitutional challenges are pending.
* Allowing sufficient time for appellate review before elections occur.
Motion to Recuse Judge
Following the dismissal of her cases, Kane filed a motion seeking the recusal of Justice Matthew V. Grieco.
Rather than relying solely upon her own experience, Kane states that she reviewed every designating petition case assigned to Justice Grieco during the 2026 election cycle.
She created a spreadsheet analyzing publicly available court records and compared numerous factors, including:
* Time between filing and signing of Orders to Show Cause.
* Time remaining to complete service.
* Whether alternative methods of service were requested.
* Whether alternative service was granted or denied.
* Whether litigants were limited to personal service.
* Case outcomes.
* Demographic characteristics of litigants where publicly identifiable.
According to Kane, the analysis revealed what she describes as a pattern of disparate treatment.
She alleges that white male litigants more frequently received earlier signed orders, greater time to complete service, and broader authorization for alternative service methods.
By contrast, Kane contends that minority candidates were more frequently required to complete personal service under compressed deadlines that made compliance substantially more difficult.
One category in Kane's analysis was labeled "direct sabotage."
Kane used that term to describe cases in which she alleges court orders directed litigants to perform service after statutory deadlines had already expired or were signed so late that meaningful compliance became practically impossible.
Her motion argues that experienced election judges understand the strict jurisdictional deadlines governing Election Law proceedings and that such orders effectively guaranteed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction if followed literally.
Justice Grieco has not publicly responded to Kane's allegations.
No court has found that judicial misconduct occurred.
Kane also filed a complaint with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct requesting an investigation into Justice Grieco's handling of election cases.
Independent Neighborhood Democrats
Kane has also criticized the Independent Neighborhood Democrats, a Brooklyn political club active in local Democratic politics.
She alleges members of the organization repeatedly harassed her during the campaign and participated in efforts to remove her from the ballot.
Kane further alleges that, as a candidate with a disability who uses a service animal, she experienced discriminatory treatment from individuals associated with the organization.
She has requested action within the New York State Democratic Party concerning those allegations.
The organization has not publicly responded to all of Kane's claims.
Grassroots Campaign Versus Money
Kane argues that her experience demonstrates how New York's election system favors well-funded candidates.
She points to the substantial campaign expenditures of her opponents while noting she did not raise enough money to file an FEC report.
According to Kane, candidates without significant financial resources face multiple barriers:
* Hiring professional petition circulators.
* Retaining experienced election-law attorneys.
* Responding to petition challenges.
* Litigating expedited election proceedings.
* Conducting voter outreach while defending lawsuits.
She argues that ballot access has become increasingly dependent upon financial resources rather than voter support.
Write-In Campaign
Following her removal from both the Democratic primary ballot and the independent general election ballot, Kane announced that she intends to continue campaigning as a write-in candidate should her remaining legal challenges prove unsuccessful.
Her campaign slogan, "Just Write In Nickie," reflects that effort.
Kane maintains that her litigation is no longer solely about restoring her candidacy but about reforming New York's election laws to ensure future candidates receive meaningful access to the courts before elections become moot.
"The Board of Elections must follow the law," Kane has said. "The courts must follow the law. If election disputes aren't resolved until after the election, meaningful judicial review no longer exists."