NY voters are disappointed by Court’s mail-in voting decision.

Disregarding the directive that “no means no,” the state Court of Appeals recently ruled that New Yorkers are not required to provide an excuse when voting by mail if they are capable of voting in person, despite the voters themselves previously rejecting such a measure.

Mail-in voting is not a novel concept, with Oregon conducting elections exclusively by mail since 2000, followed by several other states such as Vermont.

Although the idea is to maximize election participation while minimizing fraud, the recent ruling by New York’s highest court raises concerns in this regard.

In 2021, a proposal to allow no-excuse absentee voting was defeated in a referendum by a 10-point margin, leaving the state’s existing rules intact that only allow absentee voting for specific reasons.

Instead of trying to persuade voters again in 2023, lawmakers bypassed the earlier rejection by introducing a law allowing no-excuse absentee voting under the guise of “early mail voting.”

Opponents challenged this move in court, arguing that it was an illicit alteration to the state’s voting rules. However, the court upheld the new law by a 6-1 vote.

Chief Judge Rowan Wilson argued that the Constitution may not have always required in-person voting, despite centuries of precedent in New York.

The dissenting Judge Michael Garcia criticized the majority’s logic and emphasized the importance of upholding the will of the people through legal means.

These actions by the Court of Appeals underscore a troubling pattern of disregarding the law in pursuit of specific outcomes, eroding the rule of law in Albany.

As New Yorkers observe these developments, they raise legitimate concerns about the future decisions and actions of the state’s courts.

Ken Girardin is research director at the Empire Center for Public Policy in Albany.