A Great Neck Park’s District commissioner candidate sued the park district in a case of what appeared to him as election tampering. While the courts denied his request to overturn the election, they granted him the ability to review the 2023 absentee ballots and ballot applications.
What was found by candidate Gordon Charlop and confirmed by a handwriting expert were more than 100 signature pairings from the ballots and the applications that did not match. Also found by Charlop, he said, were a majority of absentee ballots designating his challenger and incumbent Park Commissioner Tina Stellato as the person receiving and delivering the absentee ballots.
But Charlop’s actions have hit a wall as he now depends on a law enforcement agency to investigate the case and bring forward charges if they are warranted.
“What is done is done,” Charlop said. “The question is can we do something now.”
Charlop, who lost to Stellato in the 2023 election, filed the lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Nassau County on Dec. 29, 17 days after the election.
The lawsuit alleged that the district has conducted “improper, unfair, biased and illegal” election procedures.
According to data from the park district, Stellato won re-election in the race with 1,580 votes and Charlop received 710.
Charlop garnered about 47% of all in-person votes but fell behind in absentee votes. He received 69 absentee votes, while Stellato received 861.
Charlop questioned the large number of absentee ballots.
The lawsuit requested that the election be tossed out entirely and asked for the ability to review the ballots.
The courts determined that an election can only be invalidated by the attorney general, with both parties agreeing to remove that component of the lawsuit in March, according to court documents.
The Great Neck Park District wrote in a statement that they were pleased with the outcome of the lawsuit they said ruled in their favor.
“It is regrettable that the resources of the Park District, including taxpayer funds, had to be diverted to defend the votes of our residents, who vote by machine (as 1,360 did in 2023) or by
absentee ballot (as 930 did in 2023),” the Park District wrote. “Park District elections are conducted fairly and lawfully by our dedicated staff.”
The Park District called the lawsuit an attempt to disenfranchise voters.
“Charlop’s objective was a curious one in light of strong and expanding public policy to prevent voters from being disenfranchised,” the Park District wrote.
But the Nassau Supreme Court judge did grant Charlop the ability to review absentee ballots that he said the Park District refused to hand over.
Charlop said he observed about 800 absentee ballots. Of those, he questioned the signatures matching on about 250 ballots and its associated absentee ballot application.
“There are hundreds of these things that were not signed by the same person,” Charlop said.
Charlop, who is also running the Park District’s election Tuesday, said he brought in a handwriting expert to dispel accusations of bias.
The report by Richard Picciochi for Access Forensic Group, LLC determined that 79% of the ballots questioned by Charlop were “probably or highly probably” not written by the same person. One pairing did not use the same written name. The remaining three were found to have sufficient significant similarities and likely written by the same person and 26 were found inconclusive.
A total of 145 pairs of absentee voter applications and their corresponding ballots were evaluated. These 145 ballots and ballot applications were selected by Charlop who, upon review, found discrepancies.
Of the 141 found with inconsistency, these ranges from no resemblance at all to varying different legibilities, complexities and some with resemblance but different movement characteristics, according to the report.
Access Forensic Group evaluated the district’s absentee ballot applications and compared them to the voter’s corresponding ballot to examine if the two signatures matched and were therefore made by the voter.
The methodology used by Access Forensic Group was accessing individualized handwriting techniques, like specific letter design or formations. The group described handwriting as a “habitual action,” or something done unconsciously that remains consistent.
The report said it is unknown whether either of the signatures on both the ballot and application were signed by the associated voter.
Charlop also said about 70% of the absentee ballots he observed had listed Stellato, the incumbent candidate and his opponent, as the designated person to deliver the absentee ballots. Another 10%, he said, were designated to Commissioner Vanessa Tamari. Efforts to solicit comment from Stellato and Tamari were unavailing.
He considered the ballot designations to the commissioners as voter intimidation.
Charlop said the Nassau District Attorney’s Office opened a case into the Park District’s election, but later closed it due to not strong enough evidence from the handwriting expert. He said he has since sent the case to the New York State Attorney General’s Office.
