- 15 - Nos. 56 & 58 restrictions, which led to “example after example of candidates being removed from the ballot for trivial errors,” and advocated reforms that would encourage people to run for office, instead of the “series of obstacles that only those well versed in the technicalities of the law can overcome” (id.). Those outside the government made similar observations: “For decades New York’s ballot access laws have made us the laughingstock of the nation” (Letter from Andrew Greenblatt, Executive Director, Common Cause/NY, July 12, 1996, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 709 at 30). In response to such criticism, the legislature reversed direction, removing the strict compliance regime of 1969 through successive reforms of the Election Law in 1992 and 1996. Through enacting the Election Reform Act of 1992 and the Ballot Reform Act of 1996, the legislature sought to “facilitate ballot access for candidates” (Sponsor’s Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1992, ch 79, at 27) and to make ballot access “simpler and fairer for candidates in political-party primary elections” (Sponsor’s Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 709, at 15); see also Letter from Jonathan Burman, Director of Legis Affairs, Assn of Bar of City of NY, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 709, at 29 [the bill “goes a long way towards the critically important goal of easing those requirements which govern access to the ballot”]). In promoting the Ballot Reform Act of 1996, the Governor expressly repudiated the strictly construed regime of 1969, approving the legislature’s replacement of it with one of liberal construction (Governor’s Mem, Bill Jacket L 1996, ch 709, at 18 [“all rules relating to the validity and submission of petitions are to be liberally construed”]). Specifically, these two Acts repealed the “complex and burdensome rules for attaching cover sheets to petitions and bundling petitions” and assured that “any deficiencies regarding cover sheets” - 15 -