New York’s lawmakers were right to push for the expansion of mail-in voting. The process through which lawmakers ultimately imposed that expansion, however, is deserving of the scrutiny it’s now receiving courtesy of a lawsuit filed by Republicans, including North Country Rep. Elise Stefanik.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the “Early Mail Voter Act” into law on Sept. 20, 2023, expanding the criteria registered voters would need to meet to be able to vote absentee early. Stefanik, along with other Republican and Conservative politicians and political organizations, almost instantly sued Hochul and state Board of Elections officials, arguing that the law was passed unconstitutionally. It was passed through the state Legislature rather than put on the ballot in the form of a constitutional amendment, as all previous expansions to mail-in voting have been. To make matters worse, the state Legislature knew that this expansion was not what the majority of New Yorkers wanted. They passed the Early Mail Voter Act anyway.

The core idea was a good one: Opening up the criteria voters must meet to receive early absentee ballots to include any registered voter – not just those who are outside their county on the day of the election or be unable to appear at a polling place because of illness or physical disability – could boost voter turnout. More people having their voices heard is always a good thing.

But where the state Legislature went wrong was passing this expansion in the form of a bill and seemingly ignoring the will of more than half of New York’s voters.

In 2021, a proposed constitutional amendment expanding mail-in voting was shot down by New York voters. A constitutional amendment that would’ve deleted all requirements for absentee voting was proposed in 2019. In 2020, the state added a third qualification for people concerned about contracting the virus at the polls. The 2019 proposed amendment passed the state Legislature in 2021 and went to a public referendum on the ballot of the November 2021 general election. Voters rejected this proposal 55% to 45%.

Republicans argue that this law a “blatant violation” of the state constitution. As Enterprise Staff Writer Aaron Marbone reported in a story this week, what the lawsuit’s argument boils down to, because this law is not a change to the constitution, it is not valid.

The court will decide whether or not this assertion is sound. However, the Republicans’ rushing of the court to issue a decision showcases the same partisanship that they accuse Democrats of by passing the mail-in expansion.

Republicans asked the court to halt the rollout of the mail-in expansion as the lawsuit makes its way through the courts. Three days after the historic expulsion of Republican Rep. George Santos from the House on Dec. 1, Republicans asked the court to make a decision on their request “as soon as possible,” citing a “change in circumstances” relevant to their request.

On Feb. 13, a special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District will be held to fill the seat formerly held by Santos.

Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the House, meaning they have more power to control the legislature’s agenda. This majority was made slimmer by the ouster of Santos. And with all House seats up for election in November, political parties are clamoring to gain or maintain power through this election.

Stefanik and the Republicans said this halt in the rollout is important for the 2024 election. This election carries national implications.

Republicans claim that the mail-in voting law “places them at a disadvantage as compared to other candidates.” They say they will be harmed because early mail voters will cast more ballots for Democrats than Republicans.

So as Democrats sought to expand mail-in voting via a legally-questionable process, a measure that Republicans say is politically-motivated, Republicans are, in turn, essentially rushing the court and arguing that more people voting will put them at a disadvantage politically.

Pot meets kettle.

On Dec. 26, 2023, state Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba rejected Republicans’ request to stall the implementation of the law.

In her decision, Ryba said the new law has yet not been declared unconstitutional, so the balance of equities do not tip in the GOP’s favor regarding a pause on its rollout. Ryba said stalling it at this time would “harm New York voters.” She further says that “while (Republicans) argue in conclusory fashion that early voters by mail will cast more votes for (Democrats) than (Republicans), this belief is insufficient to grant a preliminary injunction.”

Ryba’s decision has been appealed and is now heading to the Court of Appeals, which could maintain her decision, keeping the law in place as the larger lawsuit carries on. The court could overturn her decision and side with the Republicans, stopping the law from being implemented until the state courts make a decision on the larger lawsuit.

We have faith that the courts will weigh the Republicans’ lawsuit fairly and, if indeed the law is unconstitutional, it will be struck down. But the court must be allowed to make this determination on its own timeline.

In the future, New York lawmakers must first remember who they serve. If New Yorkers voted against these expansions, that decision must be respected. The process through which the state’s constitution can be amended is in place for a reason.