discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lerman v. Board Of Elections In The City Of New York (2×) When state election laws subject speech, association, or the right to vote to "'severe' restrictions, the regulation must be 'narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.'" Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (citation omitted); see also Prestia v. O'Connor, 178 F.3d 86 , 88 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 539 (1999); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 56 (2d Cir. 1994).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lerman v. Board of Elections in the City of New York (2×) When state election laws subject speech, association, or the right to vote to “ ‘severe’ restrictions, the regulation must be ‘narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.’ ” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 , 112 S.Ct. 2059 (citation omitted); see also Prestia v. O’Connor, 178 F.3d 86 , 88 (2d Cir.1999), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 1025 , 120 S.Ct. 539 , 145 L.Ed.2d 418 (1999); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 56 (2d Cir.1994).