A divided Supreme Court decision announced on Monday eliminates the requirement that mail-in absentee ballots be notarized.

But by Tuesday, the State Legislature already was drafting legislation to undo the court ruling, House Majority Leader Mike Sanders (R-Kingfisher) said.

Sanders told the Times & Free Press that a vote could come as soon as Wednesday of this week.

In the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, a movement started among some factions to make mail-in absentee voting easier and requiring less contact with others.

Under existing law, voters seeking to submit a paper absentee ballot through the mail first had to sign the ballot before a notary, who would attest to the voter’s identity.

In a 6-3 opinion in response to an application for extraordinary relief filed by the League of Women Voters and others, the Supreme Court found that absentee ballots fell within a 2002 statute creating an alternative process attesting to the authenticity of a signature that does not require the presence of a notary to witness the signing.

Under that statute, a signature that is dated and carries a declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury carries the force and effect of a notary’s affidavit.

However, three justices dissented from the decision on two separate grounds.

Justices James W. Winchester and M. John Kane IV both held that any change to the absentee ballot law should be made by Legislative action, not through the courts.

In a separate dissent, Justice Dustin Rowe held that eliminating the notary requirement not only opened the door to voter fraud but made an absurdity of the state’s law requiring a valid photo ID for in-person voting.

“Considering the history of voter fraud, the specifics of our absentee voter process, and recent legislative history, I agree with the [state election board] that it would be absurd to now open the gates and provide for no verification for absentee ballots but still require in-person voters to provide a valid ID,” Rowe said.

Both Sanders and State Sen. Darcy Jech agreed with that reasoning.

“It seems that it’s a nationwide movement and those groups who are driving it are using the current COVID-19 issue as a reason to promote their cause,” Jech said. “Having absentee ballots notarized adds an important layer of security and eliminating that requirement threatens the integrity of our election system.”

Sanders concurred.

“I think this is a blueprint that liberals and progressives have tried for several years: Why should we let a national emergency go to waste?” Sanders said.

“I think it’s dangerous. I think it’s not if voter fraud will occur, it’s when.”

Sanders did not know at press time Tuesday exactly what the proposed legislation to counter the court decision might look like, but said, in his opinion, something needs to be put in place to prevent the decision from impacting absentee voting in the June 30 primary.

“This is bad precedent. It’s not a good day for fair elections in the state of Oklahoma,” he said.

“It’s embarrassing.”