Renowned election law watchdog, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), has stepped into a significant legal battle against New York’s universal mail-in voting law. Backing two influential Republican Representatives from New York, PILF is lending its expertise and support to a lawsuit challenging the state’s contentious legislation.
As reported by The Daily Signal on July 3, 2024, PILF has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Stefanik v. Hochul, supporting Reps. Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney. The lawsuit contends that New York’s universal vote-by-mail system, which mails ballots to all registered voters, is unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the constitution restricts mail-in voting to those who are traveling, sick, or have a disability, and that the new law, passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, violates these provisions.
“Expansion of mail voting was rejected by New York voters,” stated J. Christian Adams, president of PILF. “Now, the New York [State] Legislature has unconstitutionally passed a law to allow every registered voter to cast a ballot in the mail.”
PILF’s involvement is notable due to its history of successfully challenging mail-in voting provisions in other states, including a recent victory in Delaware. The organization’s expertise in election law and its track record make it a formidable force in the ongoing debate over the integrity of the electoral process.
The lawsuit highlights concerns about election fraud, with the plaintiffs and PILF pointing to historical issues associated with mail-in voting. According to the book “The Myth of Voter Suppression,” mail-in voting has often been linked to adjudicated cases of election fraud. Additionally, the practice of ballot harvesting, where third parties collect and submit large numbers of mail-in ballots, has led to overturned elections in the past.
New York has not been immune to these issues, having experienced delays in getting timely results due to problems with mail-in voting. The plaintiffs argue that any expansion of mail-in voting should be pursued through a constitutional amendment rather than through legislation alone.
The case faced a setback in May when Justice Michael C. Lynch of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department ruled that the state constitution “contains no requirement—express or implied—mandating that voting occur in-person on Election Day.” Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs are appealing, and PILF’s involvement could add significant weight to their arguments.
Former Rep. Claudia Tenney, who is part of the lawsuit, announced her intention to run for her old seat in New York’s 22nd District. This case, supported by PILF and its allies, continues to spotlight the contentious debate over mail-in voting and its implications for election integrity in New York and beyond.
