Gothamist77%

Assemblymember's place on ballot may be in jeopardy over allegations of forgeries, fraud 6%

By David Brand72%

4/22/2026, 10:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Self-Serving Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 251 hits. Analysis detected 1,718 faulty-reasoning hits from 769 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.6% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,694 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

Three-term state Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar’s place in the Democratic primary may be in jeopardy as her opponent challenges the legitimacy of the signatures she submitted to the Board of Elections to secure a ballot line in the June election. 
New York election rules require candidates to obtain a specific number of signatures from registered party voters who live in the district that they hope to represent in order to appear on the ballot. 
The number is 500 for state primaries, like the battle for the Queens seat that Rajkumar has represented since 2021. 
At first glance, Rajkumar seemingly submitted well more than required total: over 2,500 signatures. 
But that number dwindled to just short of 1,500 on Monday after the Board of Elections tossed hundreds of signatures that did not meet resident or voter eligibility criteria. 
That leaves her with less of a cushion as she fights allegations that many of those remaining signatures are fakes or forgeries. 
Rajkumar's challenger, David Orkin, sued her in state Supreme Court last week, citing nine people's signatures that he says were forged  including one purportedly belonging to an Orkin campaign volunteer who said he did not sign Rajkumar’s petition. 
Orkin has asked a Queens judge to toss out every signature collected by seven campaign workers who he says committed the forgeries and who, combined, collected about 70% of Rajkumar’s signatures, according to his lawsuit. 
One campaign worker, Brooklyn high school senior Shuayb Sani, told Gothamist he “never forged any signatures” and left people’s homes if they declined to sign the document for Rajkumar. 
Six others did not respond to calls, emails or visits to their homes by Gothamist. 
Rajkumar has denied any wrongdoing and sought to portray the allegations as a “disgraceful, dishonest, and intentionally misleading” attempt to discredit her by Orkin and the city’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. 
“DSA got crushed in the field, so now they are embarrassing themselves in court,” Rajkumar’s spokesperson Arvind Sooknanan added in a written statement to Gothamist. 
“They are trying to manufacture a scandal out of just nine alleged bad signatures out of more than 2,600 submitted, spinning fiction because they cannot win on the facts or on the ground.” 
In response, Orkin, who was until recently an attorney at the immigrant rights organization Make the Road, said Rajkumar has misled voters on the forgery allegations and that the court will soon decide whether the signatures are valid. 
A Queens Supreme Court judge ordered a hearing on the claims for Thursday morning. 
“We look forward to a swift and transparent review by the Board of Elections and Queens Supreme Court to ensure that election rules are applied fairly and that the voices of Queens’ voters are protected,” Orkin said in a written statement. 
The ongoing case marks just the latest example of alleged petitioning fraud in a New York City election, where candidates typically rely on an army of volunteers, campaign staffers and, at times, highly compensated third-party firms to collect the necessary number of signatures. 
An August 2025 investigation by Gothamist into Mayor Eric Adams’ re-election bid identified dozens of signatures that were fraudulently obtained or outright forged by people paid by the campaign. 
Those same people submitted more than 5,000 signatures. 
Rajkumar maintained a close relationship with Adams during his term as mayor. 
Assemblymember Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx was knocked off the Democratic primary ballot in 2020, after the Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of her petition signatures were invalid  and that she lied about them. 
The petitions were dated Feb. 25 and 26 of that year, but records showed she did not pick up the blank forms from the printer until Feb. 
27. 
In some cases, canvassers simply forge people’s signatures on legal documents or obtain them by obscuring the name of the candidate on the petition form. 
State regulators and law enforcement officials have shown little interest in halting the practices or prosecuting the perpetrators despite the chronic complaints of fraud. 
Board of Elections officials say it isn’t their job to determine whether signatures are legitimate. 
Instead, the board merely verifies that the names appearing on the forms match actual registered voters who live in the relevant district. 
“Matters involving allegations of fraud fall under the jurisdiction of New York state courts, not the Board of Elections, and it is our understanding that such claims have already been filed with the court,” Board of Elections Deputy Executive Director Vincent Ignizio said in a written statement referring to Orkin’s legal challenge. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.1%David Brand: 1.9%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias13.1%This article: 2.6%David Brand: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 16.1%David Brand: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic16.1%This article: 11.4%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.4%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%David Brand: 9.0%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 9.6%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion9.6%This article: 2.9%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%David Brand: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 2.9%David Brand: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 32.6%David Brand: 7.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias32.6%This article: 14.4%David Brand: 3.4%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias14.4%This article: 6.6%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.7%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.8%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.8%This article: 15.0%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization15.0%This article: 4.3%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring4.3%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%David Brand: 5.8%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.8%David Brand: 2.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.6%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.6%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.7%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.6%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy1.6%This article: 5.1%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 6.2%David Brand: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 1.7%David Brand: 4.1%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice1.7%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

769 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers40%attributed speech462writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 35 words • 0.0% coverageShuayb Sani • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageArvind Sooknanan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageArvind Sooknanan • 33 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBoard of Elections • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageVincent Ignizio • 52 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Arvind Sooknanan

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words19% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Arvind Sooknanan: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Arvind Sooknanan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.