-6- Nos. 56 & 58 Matter of Plunkett, 76 NY2d at 850; Matter of Hutson, 54 NY2d at 774; cf. Matter of Sheehan v Aylward, 84 AD2d 602, 603 [3d Dept 1981], affd, 54 NY2d 934 [1981]). Though the Election Law has been amended over the years, these provisions and principles have never been “abandon[ed]” (see Wilson, J., dissenting op at 14). To the contrary, even after the 1992 passage of the Election Reform Act, we reinforced that untimely filings “dilute the integrity of the election process” and “jeopardize enforcement of the mandatory filing requirements set forth in the Election Law” (Matter of Pierce v Breen, 86 NY2d 455, 458 [1995]). To resolve any doubt, this Court confirmed that “[t]he Election Reform Act does not alter the strict filing provisions of Election Law § 1-106” (id. at 459; see also Matter of Gross, 3 NY3d at 258 [discussing the importance of “strict compliance with the Election Law,” which provides “no invitation for the courts to exercise flexibility in statutory interpretation”]). Accordingly, “[w]hat the Court of Appeals said 35 years ago is still apt: ‘It is wholly immaterial that the courts might reasonably conclude that what they perceive as the ultimate legislative objectives might better be achieved by more flexible prescriptions, prescriptions which might be judged by some to be more equitable. Whatever may be our view, the legislature has erected a rigid framework of regulation, detailing as it does throughout specific particulars’” (Matter of Avella v Johnson, 142 AD3d 1111, 1113 [2d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Hutson, 54 NY2d at 774). Our adherence to the legislature’s strict compliance rule, in other words, remains intact. -6-