Hiram Monserrate should remain on the ballot despite past controversies, according to advocates.

Hiram Monserrate, a former Queens councilman and state senator, has been embroiled in legal and political controversy regarding his eligibility to run for public office once again. Despite a history marked by violence and corruption, including a conviction for assaulting his then-girlfriend in 2008 and a subsequent prison sentence for fraud in 2012, Monserrate seeks re-entry into the political arena. His case raises significant questions about the fairness and legality of imposing restrictions on candidacy based on previous convictions.

In 2021, New York City passed legislation aimed specifically at preventing Monserrate from running for office, a move that many view as an arbitrary restriction put forth by incumbents who wish to dictate the conditions of eligibility for public office. This law has sparked debates about the broader implications of disenfranchising individuals based on their past actions, especially considering that many members of the City Council have previously advocated for the “Clean Slate Act,” which aims to help individuals with criminal histories reintegrate into society.

In a landmark ruling in 2023, a state trial court upheld Monserrate’s right to run for office, concluding that a law barring him from candidacy improperly retroactively applied. This ruling followed arguments from six residents of the district Monserrate sought to serve, represented by election lawyer Jerry Goldfeder, who claimed that the existing law unjustly disenfranchised voters who might choose to support him.

However, the legal battles over Monserrate’s candidacy did not end there. Recently, as he aimed for a seat representing Queens’ District 21, challengers attempted to exploit the previous legal framework to keep him off the ballot. In a controversial decision, the Board of Elections ruled in favor of claims asserting that Monserrate’s election petitions were invalid due to the city’s restrictive law. This ruling was subsequently upheld by a trial court, intensifying the legal struggle over Monserrate’s candidacy.

Next week, the Manhattan appellate court is expected to hear the case, providing an opportunity to clarify whether the city possesses the authority to impose restrictive conditions on candidacy that contradict state constitutional principles. This situation underscores the fundamental tenet of democratic society: the right of the electorate to make their choices free from legislative constraints designed to eliminate competition.

As the case unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the outcome will have significant implications for the electoral landscape in New York. Ultimately, Hiram Monserrate has a legitimate right to run for office, and it is the responsibility of the voters to express their will through the ballot box. This principle of democratic engagement is paramount, and it is essential that the integrity of the election process be upheld.