Law-Gisiko Survives Effort to Throw Her Off the City Council Ballot

By Phyllis Eckhaus

LAYLA LAW-GISIKO, above, at a March 11, 2026 rally celebrating the survival of her campaign. Photo courtesy of Layla for NY.

“Half Trumpian and half Tammany Hall.” That’s how Layla Law-Gisiko described the nearly successful effort to throw her off the ballot for the April 28 special election to fill the District 3 City Council seat vacated by Erik Bottcher. “It’s the worst of electoral politics,” she declared at a March 11 rally celebrating the survival of her campaign. “[Opponents] may disagree with me, but let the people decide at the ballot box.”

A Plan from Day One
On March 9, when the general counsel to the New York City Board of Elections sided with her challenger, Law-Gisiko feared her campaign was over. District 1 City Council Member Chris Marte described to the rally crowd at the Elliott-Chelsea public housing complex how Law-Gisiko had called him that day, in tears. Marte said he had sought to console her by reminding her there would be another election for the same seat soon, a primary in June. “We’re gonna get them in June,” he told her. “Don’t worry about it.”

“No,” she had responded. “It’s not about me. It’s about the residents of public housing,” telling Marte she needed to be seated in May in order to defend New York City Housing Authority tenants in the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea complex, whose homes are threatened with demolition.

Law-Gisiko confirmed Marte’s account, declaring, “Public housing is on the brink of disaster. And I have a plan on Day One. But Day One needs to be in May.”

Nitpicking to a Terrible Degree
The challenge that almost ended Law-Gisiko’s run asserted that her ballot line, “Affordable NYC,” violated election law by including the term “NYC.” The general counsel to the Board of Elections, agreeing with the challenger, cited an obscure case ─ upheld on appeal ─ which extended the law’s explicit prohibition on references to New York State to that acronym.

Paul Newell, a supporter of City Council candidate Lindsey Boylan and an election law attorney, told the elections board that Law-Gisiko’s use of “NYC” not only violated the law but was potentially “deceiving voters” by suggesting she had the official imprimatur of government.

Law-Gisiko’s attorney, Howard Graubard, characterized the challenge as “nitpicking to a terrible degree” and the case precedent against his client as “wrongly decided” and “unconscionable.”

The board — after observing that municipal names such as “Albany” were clearly allowed in ballot lines — rejected the recommendation of its general counsel.

SPONSORED

 

The challenge was brought by a Boylan supporter. The supporter also sought to knock Law-Gisiko off the ballot by claiming her campaign had jumped the gun and gained “unfair advantage” by collecting all its initial qualifying signatures early on the first day of the campaign. Her campaign had started petitioning at 8 a.m. and Mayor Mamdani had not signed the proclamation for the special election until that afternoon. The general counsel had rejected that challenge, contending that regardless of the time of the mayor’s signature, for the purposes of petitioning, the day had started at midnight.

The elections board found that Boylan’s ballot line, “Affordable City,” was too similar to Law-Gisiko’s. Because Law-Gisiko remains on the ballot and was the first to qualify, the board required Boylan to change her ballot line.

Tom Duane, the former District 3 City Council member who has sued to stop the NYCHA demolition plan, expressed outrage at how politics has changed. “In the old days,” he told the crowd, “the whole thing about trying to knock someone off the ballot was because you could show that they did not have widespread support in the community. The idea that Layla does not have widespread support in the community is completely and utterly and totally absurd.”

Speaking to the Village View, Duane decried Law-Gisiko’s opponents for failing to defend ballot access. “No one spoke up about it,” he protested, “They should have said, ‘this is a disgrace.’”