In this video, we discuss the case of Stefanik v. Hochul, which addresses whether a law authorizing universal no-excuse mail-in voting is constitutional. A must watch for all election lawyers, politicians, poll workers, poll watchers, voters, voting rights advocates, civic participation advocates, legislators, constitutional scholars, and all who are interested in real civil cases.
Case Name: Stefanik v. Hochul
Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 04236 (law.justia.com...)
Publication Date: 08/20/24
Oral Argument: • No. 86 Stefanik v Hochul
Issue: Is a law authorizing universal no-excuse mail-in voting is constitutional?
Key Parts of the Decision:
Overall Issue: "Our task is to rigorously analyze the constitutional text and history to determine if New York's Early Mail Voter Act is unconstitutional."
Overall Holding: "We now hold that it is not."
"It is a "well settled [rule] that [l]egislative enactments are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality . . . , and courts strike them down only as a last unavoidable result . . . after every reasonable mode of reconciliation of the statute with the Constitution has been resorted to, and reconciliation has been found impossible" (White v Cuomo, 38 NY3d 209, 216 [2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Moreover, "[a]n arrangement made by law for enabling the citizen to vote should not be invalidated by the courts unless the arguments against it are so clear and conclusive as to be unanswerable. Every presumption is in favor of the validity of such a law, and it is only when the courts are compelled by force of reason and argument that they will declare such a law invalid."
"The legislature's power to enact laws is plenary-limited only by the Federal and State Constitutions (see McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment of City of N.Y., 232 NY 377, 389 [1922]; Lawton v Steele, 119 NY 226, 232-233 [1890], affd 152 US 133 [1894]). This includes "plenary power over the whole subject of elections" (People ex rel. Lardner, 155 NY at 502; see Burr v Voorhis, 229 NY 382, 388 [1920]). Accordingly, rather than enumerating the legislature's permitted functions, the State Constitution generally operates to limit this plenary authority by imposing restrictions on the legislature's exercise of its powers (Peter J. Galie & Christopher Bopst, The New York State Constitution 112 [2d ed 2012]). The question in determining the constitutionality of a legislative action is therefore not whether the State Constitution permits the act, but whether it prohibits it."
"The question that confronts us is whether the Constitution prevents the legislature from enacting universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting in a manner that overcomes the strong presumption of constitutionality we must afford the Act."
"Had there been a clear, unequivocal, and persistent understanding by our coordinate branches that the Constitution required in-person voting, this would be a more difficult case. However, the lack of textual support for an in-person voting requirement and the equivocal nature of the constitutional history regarding such a requirement do not allow us to overcome the very strong presumption of constitutionality we must afford to the Act.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs."
#nycourtofappeals #lawtalk #attorney #lawyer #election
#electionlaw
#votingrights
#vote
8 окт 2024
