In a decisive ruling, New York's highest court has quashed a law allowing noncitizens to vote in city elections, siding with opponents who argued it violated the state constitution.
Politico reported that the Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional, impacting potentially over 800,000 noncitizen residents slated to participate in municipal votes.
The legislation was enacted in the final days of Mayor Bill de Blasio's term and was set to permit noncitizens to vote in New York City's local elections, including mayoral races.
It officially became effective in early 2022, as it was not vetoed by de Blasio or his successor, Eric Adams.
The law drew immediate legal challenges. Opponents focused on a specific segment of the New York State Constitution that states, "every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people," using this as the basis for their argument against the law's legality.
Arguments presented by Republican challengers emphasized that the constitution's wording prevented noncitizen voting. They contended that the term "citizen" in the constitution was not merely a baseline for eligibility but a definite condition for the right to vote.
Conversely, Democratic supporters of the law argued that the Constitution’s language should be interpreted as a minimum standard.
They suggested that local governments could, theoretically, extend voting rights beyond citizens. However, this interpretation faced significant judicial scrutiny and skepticism.
The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected this broader interpretation by a majority decision of 6-1, citing concerns that such a precedent could lead to absurd extensions of voting rights, potentially even to minors.
Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, underscored the issues with viewing "citizen" as a flexible term.
He noted, "Under that interpretation, municipalities are free to enact legislation that would enable anyone to vote – including … thirteen-year-old children," highlighting the potential for extreme interpretations of the law.
Wilson further elaborated in his ruling, stating, “It is plain from the language and restrictions contained in [the state constitution] that ‘citizen’ is not meant as a floor but as a condition of voter eligibility: the franchise extends only to citizens whose right to vote is established by proper proofs."
This decision aligns with prior rulings from two lower courts, which had similarly interpreted the state constitution to restrict voting rights strictly to U.S. citizens, with proper proof required to establish eligibility.
Assemblymember Michael Tannousis, a Staten Island Republican, expressed strong approval of the court's decision.
He emphasized the exclusive nature of voting rights, saying, “As the court had held from the very beginning, the law is clear that voting is a sacred right that is for United States citizens,” and added, reflecting on his family background, “As the son of immigrants that came to New York for the American dream and worked hard to become naturalized citizens, I am content with today’s ruling."
Former Republican minority leader Joe Borelli also commented on the case, stating, “We file some lawsuits that stretch. This one was, from the beginning, an open-shut case,” indicating the clear-cut nature of the constitutional issue to the challengers.
The ruling underscores ongoing debates around voter eligibility and the definition of citizenship within the context of local elections.
While the decision has settled the immediate legal controversy, it also reaffirms the complex interplay between state laws and municipal autonomy concerning electoral rights.