Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Election Law
On Halloween, the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, ruled that Election Law §9-209 (2)(g) is constitutional. This law requires that a ballot be counted if a local, bipartisan board of ballot reviewers cannot agree on its validity.
Promoting Equal Representation and Preventing Delays
The law promotes equal representation, prevents delays in reporting results, and features sufficient and unbiased oversight, according to the latest decision. The law was passed in 2021 as part of Chapter 763 to speed up the processing of absentee ballots.
Challenge to the Law
The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the equal representation requirement in Article II, Section 8 of the New York Constitution, which mandates equal bipartisan involvement in election boards. They claimed that §9-209 (2)(g) undermines this principle by allowing one member of a two-person team to decide whether a ballot is valid, potentially bypassing judicial oversight on disputed ballots.
Court Rulings
The law was initially challenged in New York’s Supreme Court, which agreed that §9-209 (2)(g) violated equal representation and limited judicial review. However, the Appellate Division overturned this ruling, explaining that equal representation doesn’t mean unanimous agreement, just the same number of people from the opposing parties. Since §9-209 established bipartisan inspectors with evenly split powers, the Appellate Division found the law constitutional.
Court of Appeals Upholds Decision
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision, clarifying that the Constitution makes no case for unanimous agreement. Any member of the perfectly proportioned board shares the same authority to declare a ballot invalid for any defect, such as a missing signature or a late postmark. If they disagree, the tie goes to the runner, and the ballot counts.
Dismissal of Related Appeal
The Court of Appeals also dismissed a related appeal from Senate and Assembly Republican leaders, who supported the challenge, arguing that it favored majority power in disputes. They argued that all of Chapter 763 was unconstitutional, limiting minority influence in close elections. However, the court decided they lacked standing, unable to prove any direct harm from the prior ruling.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals’ decision upholds the constitutionality of Election Law §9-209 (2)(g), ensuring that ballots can be counted if a bipartisan board of ballot reviewers cannot agree on their validity. This decision promotes equal representation, prevents delays in reporting results, and features sufficient and unbiased oversight.
FAQs
Q: What does the Court of Appeals’ decision mean for New York elections?
A: The decision upholds the constitutionality of Election Law §9-209 (2)(g), ensuring that ballots can be counted if a bipartisan board of ballot reviewers cannot agree on their validity.
Q: How does the law promote equal representation?
A: The law requires that a ballot be counted if a local, bipartisan board of ballot reviewers cannot agree on its validity, promoting equal representation and preventing delays in reporting results.
Q: What is the significance of the Appellate Division’s ruling?
A: The Appellate Division’s ruling established that equal representation doesn’t mean unanimous agreement, just the same number of people from the opposing parties, making the law constitutional.
Q: What is the impact of the Court of Appeals’ decision on judicial review?
A: The Court of Appeals’ decision allows for ballot challenges, and candidates can get a court-ordered injunction, or the attorney general can contest the results of a race.
