- 17 - Nos. 56 & 58 section of the Election Law pertaining to absentee ballots – one to which the 1992 and 1996 ballot access amendments do not apply. In contrast to Election Law § 6-134, which by its text requires only “substantial compliance,” Election Law § 9-209 has no such provision. The fact that those sections of the Election Law are incomparable is made clear in the Gross Court’s observation of the “magnitude” of the errors in that case, far from the “minor alteration of procedure [that] can be viewed as substantial compliance with statutory directives” here (id. at 260). Even were Gross relevant, it undermines the majority’s position. Gross expressly noted that there “are instances where inconsequential deviations from the letter of the law will not be fatal” (id.). Pierce v Breen (86 NY3d 455 [1995]) does not support the majority’s position either. The legislative reforms of 1996, which were specifically targeted at “eliminating a myriad of technicalities that have long been used to invalidate petitions” (Governor’s Mem, Bill Jacket L 1996, ch 709, at 18), were enacted after Pierce. As the majority itself acknowledges, “[i]t is for the legislature, not the courts, to decide when law should ‘give way’” (majority op at 11, quoting Judge Rivera’s dissenting op at 11): in 1996, the legislature plainly told the courts that the prior regime must give way to the new. More importantly, Pierce does not support the majority’s position here. In that case, we held that the premature filing of a certificate of nomination, “not in compliance with the strict election timetable,” was a fatal defect (86 NY2d at 455). That case concerned a substantive violation that “would dilute the integrity of the election process,” because the Schoharie County Democratic Committee had nominated the candidate before the primary election took place – effectively denying voters the chance to select someone else. In so holding, - 17 -