April 17, 2007

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence.


We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion concerning application of the Freedom of Information Law to requests made to the Mattituck Park District for copies of voter sign in sheets from a November 16, 2006 election. While we are not experts on the subject of park districts, it appears that the information you have requested must be disclosed. In this regard, we offer the following comments.

First, park districts are creations of towns and defined specifically in §1471 of the Unconsolidated Laws. They are unique entities, separate from the towns in which they are located, and governed by a board of park commissioners which “shall have entire charge, control and management of the establishment, maintenance, operation and improvement” of the park district (see §1486). It is our understanding that park districts, like the towns in which they are located, are subject to the provisions of the Election Law. The following analysis is based on this assumption.

We note initially that the voter list maintained and published by a county board of elections is based on “actual voting” by citizens; if a person fails to vote within a certain number of years, his or her name is removed from the list.

Next, the reasons for which a request is made and an applicant's potential use of records are generally irrelevant, and it has been held that if records are accessible, they should be made equally available to any person, without regard to status or interest [see e.g., M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City, 62 NYS 2d 75 (1984) and Burke v. Yudelson, 368 NYS 2d 779, aff'd 51 AD 2d 673, 378 NYS 2d 165 (1976)]. However, §89(2)(b)(iii) of the Freedom of Information Law permits an agency to withhold "lists of names and addresses if such list would be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes" on the ground that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Due to the language of that provision, the intended use of a list of names and addresses may be relevant, and case law indicates that an agency can ask that an applicant certify that the list would not be used for commercial purposes as a condition precedent to disclosure [see Golbert v. Suffolk County Department of Consumer Affairs, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., (September 5, 1980); also, Siegel Fenchel and Peddy v. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, Sup. Cty., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, October 16, 1996].

Nevertheless, §89(6) of the Freedom of Information Law states that:

"Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or abridge any otherwise available right of access at law or in equity to any party to records."

As such, if records are available as a right under a different provision of law or by means of judicial determination, nothing in the Freedom of Information Law can serve to diminish rights of access [see e.g., Szikszay v. Buelow, 436 NYS 2d 558, 583 (1981)].

Relevant in this instance is §5-602 of the Election Law, entitled "Lists of registered voters; publication of", which states that voter registration lists are public. Specifically, subdivision (1) of that statute provides in part that a "board of elections shall cause to be published a complete list of names and residence addresses of the registered voters for each election district over which the board has jurisdiction"; subdivision (2) states that "The board of elections shall cause a list to be published for each election district over which it has jurisdiction"; subdivision (3) requires that at least fifty copies of such lists shall be prepared, that at least five copies be kept "for public inspection at each main office or branch of the board", and that "other copies shall be sold at a charge not exceeding the cost of publication." As such, §5-602 of the Election Law directs that lists of registered voters be prepared, made available for inspection, and that copies shall be sold. There is no language in that statute that imposes restrictions upon access in conjunction with the purpose for which a list is sought or its intended use.

Since §5-602 of the Election Law confers unrestricted public rights of access to voter registration lists, in our opinion, nothing in the Freedom of Information Law could be cited to restrict those rights. Further, as a general matter, we believe that a statute pertaining to a specific subject prevails over a statute pertaining to a general subject. A statute in the Election Law that pertains to particular records would in our view supersede a statute pertaining to records generally, such as the Freedom of Information Law.

The provisions of the Election Law cited above pertain to voter registration lists prepared and maintained by county boards of elections. However, the information at issue would be available to any person, irrespective of the intended use, from a county board. That being so, and in consideration of the direction provided in the Election Law, we do not believe that there is any basis for withholding the list of those who voted in the Mattituck Park District, regardless of the intended use of the list.

On behalf of the Committee on Open Government, we hope this is helpful to you.


Camille S. Jobin-Davis
Assistant Director