-8- Nos. 56 & 58 discretion to fashion exceptions” – no matter how compelling the circumstances may be (Matter of Hawatmeh, 2020 NY Slip Op 02907, at *2). It is for the legislature, not the courts, to decide when the law should “give way” (Rivera, J., dissenting op at 11) to the circumstances of the moment. During the most difficult and trying of times, consistent enforcement and strict adherence to legislative judgments should be reinforced – not undermined. Accordingly, in both Seawright and Hawatmeh, the candidates’ untimely filings constituted fatal defects (Election Law § 1-106 [2]; see Election Law § 6-158 [2]; L 2020, ch 24).3 Even if unique circumstances were a license to disregard the Election Law, the theory endorsed by our dissenting colleagues relies on the alarmist and factually inaccurate premise that timely filing would have required Seawright to “disregard[] the public health by exposing others to a life-threatening virus” (Rivera, J., dissenting op at 2; accord Wilson, J., dissenting op at 10 [claiming that, to “appear on the ballot,” Seawright would have been required to “risk[] her life and the lives of others”]). The City Board’s cover sheet template explicitly allows for a “Candidate or Agent” to sign and submit the candidate’s cover sheet (9 NYCRR 6215.8 [emphasis added]), and Seawright has never argued that she was responsible for filing the cover sheet, let alone that she was the only person associated with the campaign who was capable of filing it. In fact, in Mejia (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]) and Mujumder (___ NY3d ___ [decided herewith]), the We do not agree with our dissenting colleague’s view (see Wilson, J., dissenting op at 20-22) that Hawatmeh’s appeal can be disposed of on alternative grounds pursuant to Election Law § 1-106 (1). 3 -8-