New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, is upholding a law that Republicans say could open the door to fraudulent votes being cast in future elections. The high court’s decision will likely be the final word on the matter, as Republicans are not expected to appeal it to the Supreme Court in Washington.

The court released unanimously decision in the case Amedure v. New Yorkwhich challenged a 2021 law that relaxed procedures for handling a mail-in ballot when its validity is in question.

Republicans have expressed concern that the law is unconstitutional in its changes to the process for deciding whether a ballot is valid. However, the justices found that the plaintiffs “have not met their ‘heavy burden'” of proving the law violates the state constitution.

Previously, a board of commissars, equally divided between members of the two major parties, should have agree that a ballot was valid for counting.

Under the 2021 law, if commissioners are deadlocked on the validity of a ballot because of questions about a signature problem on it, the ballot must be processed and counted. Once counted, it cannot be contested.

Republicans argued that the updated language violates a section of the New York state constitution that requires “equal representation of the two political parties,” which they also interpreted to mean that there must be bipartisan agreement on the validity of a ballot. vote.

However, the justices wrote, “We disagree.” They said the simple requirement that the board of commissioners be split equally between members of the two parties “ensures that equal representation” and that the constitution does not require commissioners to agree.

The justices also noted that election law allows commissioners of both parties to decide whether a ballot is valid, “Thus, no member of the Board has more authority than any other member over the canvassing process, and neither party has more influence on the process than others.”

The court also dismissed concerns that requiring ballots to be counted in the event of a deadlock opens the door to fraudulent votes. The judges shared the view of an appeals court that there are “numerous safeguards by which courts can address and prevent electoral fraud, if necessary.” They said that in the “rare event” that fraud occurs, third-party observers can seek a court order to stop the ballot canvassing process.

“We hold that the statute does not violate constitutional principles of separation of powers or judicial review,” the court said.

New York Democrats celebrated the decision, and state Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris told the Sun, “Today’s decision by the Court of Appeals marks another decisive victory for New York voters.”

“I remain committed to ensuring that all eligible voters can be confident that their vote will be counted. As Election Day approaches, we can now put behind us the latest Republican attempt to infringe on these inalienable rights and focus on helping New Yorkers,” he added.

A spokesman for the New York State Republican Committee, David Laska, called the law “an insult to fair elections.”

A New York congressman, John Faso, also told the Sun that he was “very disappointed” in the decision because it removes the “bipartisan nature” of the ballot review. However, he doesn’t expect state Republicans to try to take the case to the Supreme Court.

During the arguments before the Court of Appeal, the Republican lawyers argument the process could result in a commissioner disagreeing about whether a ballot was cast by someone who is registered to vote in another state or who is dead, and the ballot being counted anyway.

However, state attorneys argued that while the ballots that are cast cannot be challenged or overturned, process observers could go to court to stop the canvassing process if they witness “systemic corruption.”

While studies have found that the chance of fraud associated with postal ballots is very high lowrelaxed procedures for addressing questions about the validity of a ballot could lead to questions about which ballots were counted in crucial elections.

Indeed, two justices who dissented from an earlier decision to uphold the law said it “has the potential to inhibit the rights of New Yorkers to vote by preempting objections to a vote cast by someone else on behalf of their”.

In a trio of Republican-held House seats that Democrats are trying to win back this year that could determine which party controls the lower chamber, questions about the counting of invalid ballots could threaten to overshadow the election and lead to protracted struggles over the outcome. .