Libertarian Write-in Candidate Challenges D.C. Election Board’s Decision Over Advisory Neighborhood Commission Seat

Dennis Sobin, a life member of the Libertarian Party who waged a write-in campaign for one of D.C.’s Advisory Neighborhood Commission seats, is contesting the city Board of Elections’ decision with the D.C. Court of Appeals after the Board declined to certify him as the winner.

Independent Political Report discussed a story last November by the Washington City Paper that Sobin and Bruce Majors, another life member of the Libertarian Party, were presumed to have won their respective campaigns for seats on the commission. Neither candidate faced opposition on the ballot, nor did other individuals file the appropriate paperwork to be recognized as write-in options. Additionally, both candidates faced criticism from current ANC members over their presumed victories, including indications that some members would refuse to work with either candidate if they assumed office, citing controversial social media remarks by Majors and Sobin’s prior conviction as points of contention.

Although media reports suggested Sobin and Majors were “shoo-ins,” the Board of Elections did not certify their victories. Write-in results published by the Board show both Sobin and Majors submitted their Affirmation of Write-in Candidacies and earned two votes each. However, the results also indicate they were defeated by unnamed write-in candidates, with no additional information provided about these individuals or the margin of defeat.

Sobin has contested this decision, first disputing it directly with the Board via email and later filing a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals. Sobin argues that he was the only declared candidate in his race and that the Board’s actions violate its own rules and precedents. In his petition, Sobin alleges that the Board failed to verify whether the unnamed write-in candidate in his race is a real person. He further asserts that the Board’s actions contradict established practices, which he claims should have disqualified votes for non-declared candidates.

“In your ‘2024 General Election Write-In Candidates Official Results” you count the votes received by non-candidates. That is not proper. Even more unacceptable is that you do not name those non-candidates,” Sobin wrote in an email to the Board. “You simply state ‘there is a write-in nominee with more votes than the write-in candidate.’ You then use that statement to reject the top candidate vote-getter as the winner and declare the entire election null and void in mine and several other elections.”

The Board of Elections defended its process, stating in an email response included in Sobin’s initial petition that no evidence suggests the unnamed write-in candidate is fictitious. The Board explained that its decision to certify no winner aligns with its standard practices for handling write-in results, which require a majority of votes cast for declared candidates but do not necessitate identifying unnamed write-ins.

They continued that while Sobin received the most write-in votes, the declared write-in winner failed to file the required form, making them ineligible. According to their rules, if no eligible winner exists, the election remains uncertified. The Board further clarified that their decision is intended to ensure election outcomes reflect the will of voters. Declaring a runner-up as the winner, they argued, could undermine this principle by allowing for potential manipulation, such as candidates strategically disqualifying themselves.

Sobin also filed an opposition in mid-December, and a petition for rehearing en banc in late December, where he further argued that a legitimate candidate must perform an overt act indicating their intent to seek public office to be recognized as such, referencing practices used in neighboring Maryland. He contends that merely writing a name in the write-in space does not constitute such a candidacy. Sobin’s filings include hypothetical examples, such as votes for “Donald Duck,” to illustrate his point that the Board’s interpretation could lead to absurd outcomes. He also expressed concern about the Advisory Neighborhood Commission having the authority to address the vacancy by setting a special election, citing both his age and health, as well as noting the past remarks made by sitting members against his being in the position.

“There is no procedure in place for having a fair and valid follow-up election now that the BOE will not declare the only candidate in the election, petitioner Sobin, the winner.,” Sobin’s second petition reads. “The DCBOE procedure for filling a vacancy in the ANC is to put the election in the hands of the ANC that has publicly voiced opposition to petitioner as a commissioner.”

Sobin added that he is an “impoverished 81 year old handicapped person who cannot physically go about to get people to sign petitions nor to pay anyone else to do it,” noting that write-in candidacies are how he runs for office. He further argued that the procedure used to fill the seat, which includes collecting signatures, would both “effectively eliminate” him as a candidate and present a “clear violation” of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has not yet announced whether it will grant Sobin’s petition for rehearing en banc. Meanwhile, the ANC 2A09 seat remains vacant, although its website currently reflects the previous officeholder. Thanks to Bruce Majors for submitting the documents referenced in this article.