New York's highest court has affirmed the legality of a law allowing all registered voters in the state to cast their ballots by mail. In a 6-1 decision, the Court of Appeals rejected a Republican-led challenge to the legislation approved by the state legislature in 2023.
The ruling, reported by the Associated Press, means that millions of New Yorkers will have the option to vote by mail in the upcoming November 5 election.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik, was part of a broader Republican effort to tighten voting rules following the 2020 election. Challengers argued that the state constitution mandates in-person voting for most people. However, Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, concluded that while the question was "difficult" and previously unaddressed by the high court, no such requirement exists in the state's constitution.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, New York's absentee voting laws were relatively restrictive. As recently as the 2018 presidential election, voters generally could only cast absentee ballots if they had a specific reason preventing them from voting in person, such as military service, travel abroad, or illness.
The landscape changed dramatically in the spring of 2020 when then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order allowing widespread mail-in voting to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 at polling sites. This shift resulted in over 1.5 million New Yorkers voting by absentee ballot in that year's presidential election.
Following the pandemic-induced changes, Democrats attempted to make mail-in voting a permanent fixture through a constitutional amendment in 2021. However, voters rejected this proposal after a campaign by conservatives who raised concerns about potential voter fraud.
Undeterred by the failed constitutional amendment, New York lawmakers passed the Early Mail Voter Act, which took effect in January 2024. This legislation expanded mail-in voting without amending the state constitution, a move that prompted the legal challenge culminating in Tuesday's court decision.
In the majority opinion, Chief Judge Wilson acknowledged the controversial nature of the legislature's actions:
The voters considered the proposition and voted against it. Having lost the question before the voters, the legislature then decided that no constitutional amendment was required and passed the Act. Upholding the Act in these circumstances may be seen by some as disregarding the will of those who voted in 2021.
Despite these concerns, Wilson emphasized that the court's role was to interpret the Constitution's requirements, even if the resulting conclusion might be unpopular.
The court's decision has elicited strong reactions from both sides of the political aisle. Republicans, including Representative Stefanik, have denounced the ruling as a misinterpretation of the state's constitution. Stefanik argued that the decision effectively declared that for over 150 years, New York's elected officials, voters, and judges had misunderstood their own state's constitution.
In contrast, Democratic leaders, including Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, have praised the court's decision. Governor Hochul framed the ruling as a continuation of efforts to remove barriers to voting, emphasizing the historical struggles to secure and protect voting rights.
The ruling ensures that New York voters will have expanded options for casting their ballots in the upcoming November 5 election. This development aligns with a trend observed in the 2020 election, where Democrats were more likely to utilize mail-in voting options than Republicans.
New York's highest court has upheld the state's mail-in voting law, rejecting a Republican challenge and affirming the legislature's authority to expand voting options without a constitutional amendment. The decision allows all registered voters in New York to cast ballots by mail in future elections, including the November 5 contest. While the ruling has been met with praise from Democrats and criticism from Republicans, it represents a significant development in the ongoing national debate over voting accessibility and election integrity.
