close
close
New York appeals court upholds mail-in voting law and restores blocked provision

New York State Court of Appeals. Image credit: Adobe Stock.

A New York appeals court upheld part of a state law designed to simplify the counting of mail-in ballots, overturning a lower court ruling that had invalidated part of the law.

In its ruling Friday, the court sided with the state and upheld the law in full, including a previously repealed provision about how poll workers examine ballots. The provision says that if a panel of poll workers disagrees on whether a ballot is valid, “it must prepare that ballot for casting and counting.”

The court ruled that the provision designed to prevent legal challenges to ballots received on time was not unconstitutional.

“In our view,” the opinion states, “the Legislature’s decision to preclude judicial challenges to timely received, sealed ballots that have been duly issued to eligible, registered voters and found to be authentic by at least one election official … does not constitute an unconstitutional interference with the powers of the judiciary.”

The decision follows a lawsuit filed by the New York Republican Party and other conservative plaintiffs claiming the law is unconstitutional. Oral arguments were held on August 12.

The state explained that the purpose of the 2021 law is to “expedite the counting of absentee ballots” and “reduce delays in the announcement of election results.” The law allows for ongoing verification of absentee ballots and requires a provisional ballot from voters who request an absentee ballot but decide to vote in person. It also prevents legal challenges to absentee ballots cast.

A lower court largely upheld the law in May, striking down a provision that governed how poll workers audit ballots. The state and New York Senate appealed.

In its decision, the lower court held that the legislature had exceeded its authority in adopting this provision because the New York State Constitution requires that challenged ballots must be “set aside subject to judicial review.”

However, according to the state, the law does not mean that challenged ballots are no longer subject to legal action, meaning a party can still take legal action against the ballot. Removing the 2021 provision, the state said, “leaves a gaping hole in the law so that there is no longer a single answer to the question of what happens when poll workers cannot agree.”

The plaintiffs claim the law is unconstitutional and have asked the appeals court to block its enforcement. They argue that, among other things, the law “protects fraudulent votes from the post-election scrutiny they traditionally receive” and “favors fraudulent ballots over genuine, in-person votes.”

They also claim that the section of the law requiring provisional ballots for voters who requested mail-in ballots but voted in person is misleading because the provisional ballot “will certainly be invalidated and discarded.”

The state argues that this provision is consistent with longstanding rules governing contested in-person votes. “When voting in person at polling places,” the attorneys wrote, “if a poll watcher disputes a voter’s eligibility, a voter may still vote if he/she signs an affidavit attesting to his/her eligibility to vote. That vote will be accepted and counted without judicial review, even if the poll watchers believe the voter is lying.”

The presumption is in favor of a vote count, the state explained. “This has been accepted as common and constitutional practice for decades.”

Read the decision here.

Read more about the case here.

By Bronte

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *