B.S. is a successful businessman who works in the metropolitan area and lives in Queens in a home with an assessed value of $474,000. He doesn’t own or rent a home in Sullivan County, but the Board of Elections recently upheld his right to vote here, in a town where a close relative has frequently appeared on the ballot as political candidate. For voting purposes, his “local address” is a house occupied by his grandmother.

P.G. is a retired attorney who has owned his home in Sullivan County for more than 40 years, but last week Judge Stephen Schick ruled that he does not have a right to vote here.

What’s going on?

B.S. is the beneficiary of a liberal interpretation of election law that permits adult children to vote in the town where their parents reside, even if they themselves live in another part of the country. And this option is open to “children of all ages.” B.S., for example, is 31.

On the other hand, P.G. is the victim of a cramped interpretation of the law that prevents him from voting in a town where he has dutifully paid taxes for decades. Last week,20 Judge Stephen Schick ruled that P.G. and 16 other homeowners were not permitted to vote from their homes in the Town of Cochecton.

So how did the judge reach this decision?

First, the judge found that the “fixed, permanent and principal homes” of these 17 voters “are elsewhere.” Of course the same could be said of B.S., but that doesn’t seem to trouble the Board of Elections. Moreover, recent court decisions have made it clear that, for voting purposes, an individual can have more than one principal residence, but that doesn’t seem to matter to Judge Schick.

Second, Judge Schick seemed concerned that individuals with more than one home “have more rights than other citizens have.” To state the obvious—election law doesn’t give anyone the right to vote twice, just very limited discretion in deciding where to cast a ballot.

Third, Judge Schick pointed out that the Lake Huntington residents in question have previously voted elsewhere, and he questioned whether they “have the right to change where they vote.” Of course this ignores the fact that many voters have only recently become aware that New York State election law gives them some latitude in deciding where to vote.

Wilkie v. the Delaware County Board of Elections, the precedent-setting case that permitted eight homeowners to vote from their vacation homes in Bovina rather from than their primary residences in New York City, was decided only in 2008. More importantly, there is nothing in the election law that permits a judge to bar an individual from registering to vote from any lawful address.

In the end, Judge Schick’s decision seems to turn on the fact that the homes of the prospective voters in Cochecton aren’t winterized, but here the judge seems to be rewriting the law. It defines a residence as a “place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he… always intends to return.” The law does not specify that the individual must intend to return in January or February.

In rendering his decision in Wilkie, Judge Kevin M. Dowd said, “The bottom line is… election officials are to establish that the prospective voter’s address is a real one and not a sham, and then to look at the expressed wishes of the voter.” P.G.’s address in Lake Huntington is a real one, not a sham, yet his wish to vote here was denied by the court. And what about B.S.’s “local address?” Is that a real one or a sham? Or doesn’t it matter? Are different standards applied to the children of county residents?

If P.G. wants to fully participate in the civic life here in Sullivan County, it seems he has two choices—he can either

winterize his home or do a better job picking his parents.

[Bruce Ferguson resides in Callicoon Center, NY.]