Multiple residents of the South Jamaica Houses in Queens are raising concerns that their names and signatures were fraudulently used on ballot petition sheets submitted on behalf of local and citywide candidates ahead of the June primary election. At least four residents have confirmed to The Eagle that they did not sign the petition forms where their names appear.
The contested petition sheet includes 15 names and was submitted jointly by campaigns for public advocate candidate Marty Dolan, comptroller candidate Ismael Malave Perez, Queens judicial candidate Philip Grant, and District 28 City Council candidate Ruben Wills. Residents say the signatures next to their names are not theirs, and some assert they never interacted with any canvasser at all.
Residents Claim Signature Fraud
Among the voters alleging forgery is a woman who found her name listed next to her mother’s—both of whom deny signing the document. Another voter expressed confusion over being listed in an apartment with six other individuals, none of whom she says she lives with.
“This is fraud,” said Marcia Pearce, a South Jamaica Houses resident. “Politicians want our signatures to get on the ballot, but when we need help in the projects, they don’t show up.”
Pearce added that someone came to her building weeks ago soliciting signatures, but she refused to sign anything. Yet, she later found her name on the petition sheet. The document also falsely listed six roommates under her address. She pointed out one of the names to The Eagle, suggesting the person lived in a different building, but no response was received from that individual.
Read More: Council, Mayor’s Office Clash Over Rikers Closure Plan
Local Connections Raise Eyebrows
The majority of the residents who believe their signatures were forged live near or on the same floor as Latoya LeGrand—a fellow candidate for the same council seat as Wills. Her name also appeared on the same petition sheet.
Interestingly, LeGrand’s name was written with a lowercase “g” on the petition, which differs from the consistent capitalization seen in her official campaign materials.
Despite multiple attempts, LeGrand did not respond to The Eagle’s requests for comment.
LeGrand and Wills are competing in the Democratic primary for City Council District 28—a seat formerly held by Wills from 2011 to 2017. The current officeholder, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, is term-limited and will vacate the seat at the end of this year.
A Controversial Comeback
Ruben Wills is staging a political comeback after being wrongfully convicted of corruption during his previous council term. He now faces a crowded field of candidates including Adams’ Chief of Staff Tyrell Hankerson, community leader Romeo Hitlall, and activist Japneet Singh. LeGrand, a community organizer, works in the office of State Assemblymember Vivian Cook.
Though none of the candidates have formally challenged the petition’s validity, the residents interviewed say they’re upset and distrustful.
“It’s insulting,” said Deborah Branson, another resident who lives near LeGrand. Branson, a Navy veteran and election worker, showed The Eagle her actual signature to demonstrate its difference from the one on the petition. She expressed support for LeGrand despite the controversy.
“I know her well. We all look out for each other on this floor. I want her on the ballot.”
Another resident, Joseph Benson, found his name abbreviated as “JBenson” on the form. He denied signing it and noted the signature didn’t match his own.
Pattern of Discrepancies
Lelia Allen, who resides in a separate building, also denied signing the petition, and said her mother—whose name appears beside hers—hadn’t either. Allen works remotely and said she would have been home on March 26, the date the sheet was reportedly signed.
While most voters questioned the legitimacy of their listed signatures, one man interviewed by The Eagle said that Gloria Whales, a woman living in his apartment whose name appeared on the petition, had indeed signed it herself. However, Whales was not available to confirm.
Candidate Responses and Legal Hurdles
Ruben Wills issued a statement through his attorney asserting that he had submitted more than 1,800 signatures—well above the required number.
“The people of the 28th Council District have serious issues to address,” said Wills. “I’m the most experienced candidate for the job.”
Howard Graubard, legal counsel for Dolan, Grant, and Perez, stated that neither he nor the campaigns were aware of any signature irregularities.
“If something improper occurred, and depending on its extent, the consequences may be minimal,” said Graubard.
Marty Dolan emphasized that his campaign manager oversaw the signature collection process, which was outsourced to a professional consultant. He noted this is a common practice among candidates during the intense petitioning period. Dolan also stated he did not personally know the witness who signed the petition sheet, a woman named A’shanti Sharper.
Attempts to contact Sharper through a phone number believed to be linked to her went unanswered.
Forgery Allegations Not Unprecedented
This is not the first time New York voters have accused canvassers or campaign operatives of forging petition signatures. In 2022, THE CITY reported that a Brooklyn grassroots political group accused the Brooklyn Democratic Party of submitting forms to the Board of Elections containing forged signatures to remove challengers from the ballot.
That same year, New York Focus uncovered that a canvasser gathering signatures in Queens for multiple candidates, including then-State Senate candidate Elizabeth Crowley and Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar, had also forged at least four signatures.
Despite the serious nature of these allegations, the Board of Elections does not independently investigate claims of fraud. Instead, the agency reviews objections to petitions based on technical violations or signature counts.
BOE Process and Deadlines
Candidates had until midnight on the Monday following petition submission to challenge their opponents’ documents with the BOE. The agency then assigns bipartisan clerks to review objections and generate a report. Both the objecting and defending campaigns can challenge the findings during a public hearing.
If a campaign believes forgery occurred, the issue must be escalated to the courts by filing a formal “petition to invalidate.” The deadline to bring such a case this year is April 17.
Community Trust at Risk
For many residents, the incident represents more than just procedural misconduct—it’s about broken trust.
“When you fake my name for your political gain, you disrespect my voice,” said Pearce. “These are the same people who walk past our broken elevators and leaking ceilings.”
The controversy underscores the vulnerability of low-income communities like South Jamaica to political exploitation, especially in high-stakes local elections. And while the full impact of the allegedly forged signatures remains uncertain, the damage to public confidence is already evident.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the controversy about forged ballot petition signatures in Queens?
Residents of South Jamaica in Queens allege that their names and signatures were used without consent on ballot petitions submitted by multiple political campaigns. At least four individuals confirmed they did not sign the documents where their names appear.
How did the residents discover their signatures were allegedly forged?
Several residents were shown copies of the petition sheets by The Eagle and immediately identified names and signatures that did not match their own. Some were shocked to see their names listed with unfamiliar co-signers or under incorrect apartment numbers.
What is Ruben Wills’ response to the forgery allegations?
Ruben Wills, a former councilmember making a political comeback, stated he submitted over 1,800 signatures and remains focused on addressing serious community issues. He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing.
What legal action can be taken in cases of forged petition signatures?
Forgery is a criminal offense, but the Board of Elections (BOE) does not investigate fraud unless formally challenged. Campaigns must file a petition in court to invalidate forged petitions. The deadline to file such challenges was April 17.
Has the Board of Elections responded to the allegations?
The BOE has not launched an investigation. Its role is to review objections based on signature validity and compliance—not to prosecute fraud. Legal action must be pursued separately through the court system.
Is this type of signature fraud common in New York elections?
While rare, similar allegations have occurred before. In 2022, other New York City petitions were found to contain forged signatures, some linked to paid canvassers or poorly vetted signature-gathering firms.
What impact does this have on the June primary election?
If proven, fraudulent signatures could lead to the disqualification of certain candidates. However, unless legal action is taken, the accused candidates may still appear on the ballot. The controversy may also impact voter trust and turnout.
Conclusion
The allegations of forged ballot petition signatures in Queens have raised serious concerns about electoral integrity and transparency in local politics. As South Jamaica residents speak out about their identities being misused, the controversy highlights the urgent need for stricter oversight of the petitioning process and accountability for those involved. While no formal legal action has been taken yet, the situation underscores the importance of trust between candidates and the communities they seek to represent. With the primary election approaching, all eyes are now on whether the voices of voters will be respected—or further silenced by political misconduct.