MISSING Candidate Still ON Ballot—Could He WIN?

Text graphic highlighting missing person in red among blurred words

A Long Beach city council candidate disappeared into the Atlantic Ocean during a morning swim in June, yet his name remains on the ballot, and New York electoral law suggests he could technically still win.

Story Snapshot

Petros Krommidas, a Democrat running for Long Beach City Council, vanished during an ocean swim months before the election
Despite being legally declared dead, his name remains on the ballot due to New York election timing rules
If Krommidas wins, the seat would remain vacant, triggering a special election that could cost taxpayers over $100,000
Republican opponents are urging voters not to waste their votes on a candidate who cannot serve
The case exposes a peculiar gap in electoral law where ballot deadlines don’t account for candidate deaths occurring after certain dates

The Mysterious Disappearance

Petros Krommidas entered the Atlantic Ocean for his regular morning swim on June 27, 2025, and never returned. The 65-year-old restaurant owner and Democratic candidate for Long Beach City Council was last seen near the shoreline before vanishing without a trace. Search efforts by local authorities yielded no results, and after months of investigation, Krommidas was legally declared deceased. His body was never recovered, adding him to the grim list of individuals who disappeared mysteriously at sea.

The timing of his disappearance created an unprecedented electoral dilemma. Krommidas had already secured his position on the November ballot for one of two open City Council seats. New York’s election laws establish firm deadlines for ballot changes, and his disappearance occurred after the point when his name could be removed or replaced. The Democratic Party found itself in the awkward position of having a deceased candidate competing against living opponents.

The Legal Loophole That Keeps Him Running

New York election law creates a narrow window for replacing candidates who die or become incapacitated. Once that deadline passes, the ballot is locked, regardless of circumstances. This procedural reality means Krommidas remains an official candidate despite being legally dead. Election officials cannot simply remove his name, even though everyone acknowledges he cannot serve if elected. The law prioritizes ballot stability and printing logistics over adapting to tragedy.

Similar situations have occurred across American political history, though rarely with missing persons. The most famous case involved Missouri Senator Mel Carnahan, who died in a plane crash three weeks before the 2000 election but still won his race. His widow was appointed to serve in his place. However, the Krommidas situation differs significantly because he’s running for local office where no appointment mechanism exists, and there’s no family member positioned to step in.

The Republican Opposition Campaign

Republican candidates Karen McInnis and Melanie Sanchez face an unusual campaign challenge: convincing voters not to support someone who disappeared months ago. They’ve launched a public awareness effort emphasizing that votes for Krommidas are essentially wasted, as he cannot take office even if he receives the most votes. Their argument centers on fiscal responsibility, noting that a Krommidas victory would trigger a special election costing Long Beach taxpayers an estimated $100,000 or more.

Missing Long Island Democrat Petros Krommidas’ car and clothes found near beach https://t.co/RxCu66myg4 pic.twitter.com/0Gwx4rzaPA

— New York Post (@nypost) April 29, 2025

The Republican campaign also highlights the practical implications of leaving a council seat vacant. Long Beach faces significant policy decisions regarding coastal infrastructure, public safety, and economic development. A vacant seat means reduced representation during critical deliberations. McInnis and Sanchez argue that voters should focus on electing candidates who can actually serve and address community needs immediately, rather than creating a months-long gap in representation.

The Mathematics of a Ghost Victory

Long Beach voters will select two City Council members from a field that includes Krommidas, McInnis, Sanchez, and potentially other candidates. The top two vote-getters win seats. If Krommidas finishes in the top two, his seat would be declared vacant immediately after the election results are certified. This would trigger a special election process that could take several months to organize and conduct, leaving the council operating with one fewer member during that entire period.

The scenario raises questions about voter behavior and sympathy votes. Some constituents who knew Krommidas personally might vote for him as a memorial gesture, not fully understanding the consequences. Others might vote strategically, recognizing that a Krommidas vote effectively reduces competition for their preferred living candidate. Political analysts suggest the situation could split the Democratic vote in unexpected ways, potentially benefiting Republican candidates who can consolidate their party’s support.

What This Reveals About Electoral Systems

The Krommidas case exposes significant weaknesses in how election systems handle unexpected candidate deaths or disappearances. Most states established their ballot deadline rules in eras when communication was slower and printing ballots required extensive lead time. Modern voting systems, including electronic poll books and print-on-demand ballot technology, could theoretically accommodate later changes. However, legal frameworks haven’t kept pace with technological capabilities.

This situation also demonstrates the tension between procedural certainty and common sense flexibility. Election officials prize consistency and predictability, arguing that changing rules mid-process creates confusion and potential legal challenges. Yet the public reasonably expects electoral systems to adapt to obvious circumstances like candidate deaths. The gap between legal requirements and public expectations creates scenarios where following the law produces absurd outcomes that undermine confidence in democratic processes.