In a significant legal decision, New York's highest court has affirmed the constitutionality of a state law allowing universal mail-in voting.
Reuters reported that the Court of Appeals delivered a 6-1 decision in favor of the Early Mail Voter Act, which was enacted by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed into law by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul last year. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, rebuffed a challenge led by Republican lawmakers who argued that the measure contravened the state's constitution.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Republican U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, contended that the state constitution mandates in-person voting except in cases where voters are absent from home on Election Day or are incapacitated due to illness or disability. However, the court's majority found no constitutional basis for such a restrictive interpretation of voting methods.
Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, emphasized that the state constitution does not explicitly require in-person voting. The court's interpretation of the constitutional text found no clear prohibition against mail-in voting for all eligible voters.
The decision comes amid a broader national context where Republican-led efforts in various states have sought to impose restrictions on voting methods, particularly mail-in voting. These efforts have often been framed as measures to prevent voter fraud, despite a lack of evidence supporting widespread irregularities in mail voting.
Interestingly, the national Republican Party has recently encouraged its supporters to embrace early voting and mail-in options. This stance contrasts with some messaging from former President Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about mail voting despite a lack of evidence supporting claims of increased fraud.
The court acknowledged the complex backdrop against which this legal battle unfolded. In 2021, New York voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have expanded mail voting. This amendment was opposed by Republicans and failed to gain majority support at the ballot box.
Following this rejection, Democratic lawmakers in the state legislature determined that a constitutional amendment was not necessary to implement expanded mail-in voting. They proceeded to pass the Early Mail Voter Act through the regular legislative process.
Chief Judge Wilson addressed this sequence of events in the court's opinion:
Upholding the Act in these circumstances may be seen by some as disregarding the will of those who voted in 2021. But our role is to determine what our Constitution requires, even when the resulting analysis leads to a conclusion that appears, or is, unpopular.
The court's decision has elicited strong reactions from both supporters and opponents of the mail-in voting law. Representative Stefanik, who led the legal challenge, expressed her disappointment with the ruling. She characterized the decision as "disgraceful" and argued that it contradicted longstanding interpretations of the state constitution. Stefanik stated:
Today's ruling has essentially declared that for over 150 years, New York's elected officials, voters and judges misunderstood their own state's Constitution.
On the other side of the debate, Governor Hochul celebrated the court's decision. She took to social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) to hail the ruling as a "victory for democracy" and a setback for those seeking to limit voting access in New York.
In conclusion, New York's highest court has upheld the state's mail-in voting law, rejecting a Republican-led challenge that claimed the measure was unconstitutional. The 6-1 decision affirms the legality of the Early Mail Voter Act, which allows any voter in the state to cast a ballot by mail.
While acknowledging the complex political context surrounding the law's passage, the court based its ruling on a textual interpretation of the state constitution, finding no explicit requirement for in-person voting. The decision has drawn contrasting reactions from political figures, with supporters hailing it as a win for voting access and opponents criticizing it as a misinterpretation of long-standing constitutional understanding.
