Gothamist77%

Queens judge tosses challenge to Rajkumar in NYC's latest case of alleged election fraud 64%

By David Brand72%

4/30/2026, 2:57:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 30.1% saturation with 185 hits. Analysis detected 992 faulty-reasoning hits from 615 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.5% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,953 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.70% of the article peer group.

A veteran state lawmaker from Queens withstood a challenge to her position on the Democratic primary ballot Thursday after a judge dismissed on procedural grounds a lawsuit from her opponent claiming her campaign submitted hundreds of forged signatures. 
The ruling means Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar’s name will appear on the ballot in the June primary for a Queens district she has represented since 2021. 
Her opponent, David Orkin, is a lawyer endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. 
He had sued to disqualify her, claiming that his campaign had found forgeries among the signatures she submitted to secure a ballot line. 
New York election law requires candidates to submit at least 500 signatures from registered party voters living in the district they hope to represent in order to appear on the ballot for an Assembly primary. 
Orkin said in his lawsuit that at least seven signature collectors had forged names on the forms and that, combined, those collectors had obtained about 70% of Rajkumar’s signatures. 
Queens Judge Denise Johnson did not rule on the merits of those claims and instead dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Orkin and his attorneys had failed to properly serve the signature collectors and record those documents with the court. 
In a written statement, Rajkumar praised the judge’s ruling. 
“This was an ugly attempt by the Democratic Socialists of America to disenfranchise Queens voters, especially minority voters, and to bully a team of young South Asian and minority canvassers who represent the future of our state,” she said. 
“They failed.” 
Orkin and his lawyer Renee Paradis countered that he was railroaded by representatives of the Queens Democratic Party and did not get a chance to make their argument in court. 
Rajkumar’s attorneys Frank Bolz and Gerard Sweeney are two partners in a law firm with enormous influence over the Queens Democratic Party and its picks for judicial candidates. 
“What you saw in there was the Democratic machine trying to crush a grassroots campaign,” Orkin said immediately following the decision. 
Orkin’s lawyers had planned to question at least seven signature collectors in court. 
But Johnson’s ruling allowed the canvassers to leave without testifying. 
None of them agreed to answer questions from Gothamist at the courthouse Thursday 
Sweeney, one of Rajkumar’s lawyers, told the judge that the claims were a “fishing expedition” and that Orkin’s campaign had failed to properly record its subpoenas in order to “ambush” Rajkumar and the campaign workers. 
"They do not want us to know what they are going to do as if it’s a state secret of the socialist party,” Sweeney said. 
Petition fraud allegations are common each election season, but rarely result in a candidate’s disqualification. 
None of the people who said their names were forged had an opportunity to testify in court as a result of the judge’s dismissal. 
Eight of them attended the proceedings, including Woodhaven resident Gray Kennedy. 
Kennedy said they legally changed their name last year and never signed Rajkumar’s petition forms. 
But Rajkumar’s petition purported to have gathered Kennedy's former name and signature. 
“It’s bizarre,” Kennedy said. 
“It definitely does feel like a violation.” 
Several others said they were also upset to see their supposed signatures appear on documents they said they never signed, including Molly Dektar, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who also came to court Thursday. 
“Just to see someone write my name and my address as though it was me when I know for sure it wasn't, it hurts,” Dektar said. 
“It's unfair.” 
Earlier Thursday, the Queens Chronicle newspaper detailed how Rajkumar’s petitions also included the forged signature of one of its editors. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%David Brand: 1.9%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%David Brand: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 4.7%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%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: 0.0%David Brand: 9.0%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%David Brand: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias1.5%This article: 11.5%David Brand: 7.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias11.5%This article: 13.8%David Brand: 3.4%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias18.0%This article: 4.1%David Brand: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.1%This article: 4.6%David Brand: 1.7%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect4.6%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: 0.0%David Brand: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%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: 12.0%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem12.0%This article: 3.4%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man3.4%This article: 4.6%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority4.6%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: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.4%David Brand: 3.3%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.1%David Brand: 5.8%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion30.1%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.9%David Brand: 2.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.9%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%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: 10.9%David Brand: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal10.9%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: 0.0%David Brand: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brand: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.8%David Brand: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 6.3%David Brand: 4.1%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.3%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%

615 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers37%attributed speech389writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJenifer Rajkumar • 39 words • 100.0% coverageJenifer Rajkumar • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Orkin • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageGerard Sweeney • 35 words • 0.0% coverageGerard Sweeney • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGray Kennedy • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGray Kennedy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageGray Kennedy • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageMolly Dektar • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMolly Dektar • 2 words • 0.0% coverageQueens Chronicle • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jenifer Rajkumar

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words18% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+95.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jenifer Rajkumar: 95.1%95.1%Biased Writer Voice+95.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jenifer Rajkumar: 95.1%95.1%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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