The state of New York’s universal mail-in voting law is being challenged by a legal watchdog group that claims the alteration to election protocol is unconstitutional.

A court brief has been filed in the New York Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the law, passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, which allows every registered voter in the state to vote via mail-in ballot.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is leading the effort on behalf of multiple Republican leaders — including GOP Reps. Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney.

MAIL-IN BALLOTS MUST HAVE DATES ON ENVELOPES, PENNSYLVANIA APPEALS COURT RULES

New York residents overwhelmingly voted against universal mail-in ballots through a 2021 referendum seeking a constitutional amendment. 

Democratic lawmakers bypassed the failure of this referendum by simply voting the mail-in ballot expansion through the state legislature. Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed it into law late last year.

Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams accused the New York Legislature of having “unconstitutionally passed a law to allow every registered voter to cast a ballot in the mail” with this law.

NEW YORK REPUBLICANS SUE TO BLOCK DEMOCRAT GOV. KATHY HOCHUL’S NEW LAW EXPANDING EARLY MAIL-IN VOTING

This photo illustration shows an absentee mail-in ballot for the 2020 general election sent by the Board of Election in the Bronx borough of New York City. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“The plain text of the New York Constitution prohibits the expansion of mail voting,” Adams added. “If New York lawmakers want to expand mail voting, they need to pass a constitutional amendment.”

Democrats claim that the expanded avenue for absentee voting makes the democratic process easier for voters. Their critics contend this change in protocol makes voter fraud much easier.

This is not the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s first time in court fighting the expansion of absentee ballot eligibility. 

Chester County election workers process mail-in and absentee ballots for the 2020 general election in the United States at West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

The foundation previously led the 2022 legal challenge against a similar law in Delaware. 

The campaign saw initial success when a state superior court sided against the proposed permanent absentee voting expansion.

However, the New York Supreme Court shot down that decision last month in a 5-0 ruling, finding that the Public Interest Legal Foundation did not have standing to sue.

A total of 14 NHL players elected to file for salary arbitration on Friday, but Jeremy Swayman wasn’t one of them.

Whether that’s a good sign that the goalie and the Bruins are close to a deal remains to be seen. Electing not to file keeps Swayman eligible for an offer sheet, though the Bruins could file for arbitration to avoid an offer sheet. The deadline for filing for club-elected arbitration is 5 p.m. on Saturday.

The most recent big deal for a goalie was Juuse Saros’ deal with Nashville, which kicks in a year from now. It was an eight-year deal with an average annual value of $7.74 million. Saros has a longer track record than Swayman and has been more of a workhorse, having played at least 64 games in each of the last three seasons. While he’s expected to take on a bigger load with the departure of Linus Ullmark, the 44 games that Swayman played last season is the highest regular season total of his young career.

But Saros will be 30 when his contract kicks in. Swayman is 25 and the B’s will be buying into his prime seasons. He could well be looking for a better deal than the Saros extension. And having already dealt Ullmark, the B’s must come to an agreement with Swayman.

Swayman went through the arbitration process last year and, like most players, was not a fan of it. His side was going for a $4.8 million salary while the B’s countered with $2 million. The arbitration yielded a $3.475 million salary for the 2023-24 season.

Early last season, Swayman explained his feelings on the process.

“There’s no ill will on the process, because I understand that. I’m not the first player to go through it. I’m not the last,” said Swayman. “But I definitely don’t wish it upon any of my friends and teammates moving forward and I don’t want to do it ever again as well.”

Meanwhile, Swayman is not showing any outward signs he’s planning a getaway from the organization. He was seen earlier this week at Bruins’ Development Camp, chatting with some of the goalie prospects on the bench. And he quickly reached out to his presumptive backup, Joonas Korpisalo, when Korpisalo was obtained in the Ullmark deal.

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Do people experiencing homelessness have the right to camp out in cities like Pittsburgh?  

Over the objections of advocates for those experiencing homelessness, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled cities can enforce no-camping laws and take down tent encampments, even if there is no offer of alternative shelter or housing.

In Pittsburgh, the tents will stay.

Tucked behind the Allegheny County Jail is a sprawling encampment of 35 tents along the Eliza Furnace Trail.

“It’s getting ridiculous. We have our two kids and I don’t even really want to take them past it. They’re definitely encroaching on the trail. You know, it’s definitely unclean. It’s a little scary,” said Ross Lapkowicz from Regent Square. 

For the past three years, encampments have sprung up in various parts of Downtown and on both the North and South sides, but even though this is perhaps the biggest one yet, the city has no plan to decommission it or take it down, despite last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision saying cities have the power to do so.

“We have to be strategic about any encampment. If we close it, where will those people end up? Where will they go? Because we don’t have enough places to put them,” said Pittsburgh Public Safety director Lee Schmidt. 

In a decision homeless advocates say criminalizes being poor, the Supreme Court has ruled cities can enforce bans on camping, even if there isn’t a sufficient number of shelter beds to offer those living in encampments. But Schmidt says Pittsburgh’s policy will stay in effect. The encampments will remain until it can make each resident a credible offer of shelter.

“Obviously with Second Avenue Commons and the fire that occurred there, that’s complicated the issue even more so we have try to work with people where they are and continue that process,” Schmidt said.

The tents are in violation of city guidelines requiring they be 6 feet back from a public right-of-way. But unlike others, encampments, the city says this one has not been the site of rampant open-air drug use or fights, police often patrol it and both the city’s ROOTS team and Public Works Department have staged cleanups, though that hasn’t assuaged all the concerns. 

“I don’t know what the solution is,” Lapkowicz said. “I think that Pittsburgh has a lot of a vacant space and somewhere right next to something Pittsburgh has done really well with the creation of these trails is the not the spot they should be allowed.” 

“We understand it can be frustrating for some folks and others feel unsafe but we’ll do our best to continue to work with everyone involved to come up with solutions that are realistic and don’t just move the problem around,” Schmidt said.  

The city and county have a committee that continually reviews conditions at these encampment, deciding which ones should be taken down. It has decided that this one will stay for the foreseeable future.