Liberal and conservative judges on New York's highest court unite in a dramatic decision affecting nearly 800,000 noncitizen residents.
According to The Daily Caller, New York's Court of Appeals struck down a contentious law that would have allowed noncitizen residents to participate in local elections, with the court ruling 6-1 against the measure on Thursday.
The law, enacted by the New York City Council in December 2021, aimed to grant voting rights to lawful permanent residents in municipal elections.
Mayor Eric Adams allowed the legislation to become law in January 2022 without his signature, sparking immediate legal challenges from Republicans and concerned voters who argued the measure violated the state's constitution.
The ruling centered on Article II of the state constitution, which declares that "every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people." Supporters of the noncitizen voting law argued this provision did not explicitly prohibit extending voting rights to noncitizens.
Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, rejected this interpretation. He emphasized that the constitution's language clearly establishes citizenship as a requirement rather than a minimum threshold for voting eligibility.
The court expressed concern that accepting the law's interpretation could lead to absurd consequences. During oral arguments, supporters' logic suggested municipalities could theoretically extend voting rights to anyone, including young teenagers.
The court's decisive 6-1 ruling underscores the fundamental nature of citizenship in New York's electoral system. The majority opinion stressed that the constitutional language about citizenship serves as a specific condition rather than a basic starting point.
The decision effectively halts New York City's attempt to join a small number of municipalities nationwide that permit noncitizen voting in local elections. The ruling affects approximately 800,000 legal permanent residents who would have gained voting rights under the law.
The case attracted significant attention as it addressed the intersection of immigration status and voting rights, a topic of ongoing national debate. The bipartisan nature of the ruling, with liberal judges joining their conservative colleagues, adds weight to the decision's implications.
Chief Judge Wilson's opinion established clear guidelines for interpreting voter eligibility under state law. As quoted in the ruling:
[I]t is plain from the language and restrictions contained in Article II 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 and who vote by ballot.
The court's interpretation effectively closes the door on similar attempts to expand voting rights to noncitizens without a constitutional amendment. Legal experts suggest this ruling could influence how other jurisdictions approach similar proposals.
New York's Court of Appeals delivered a landmark 6-1 decision striking down legislation that would have allowed approximately 800,000 legal permanent residents to vote in local elections. The ruling, which united liberal and conservative judges, centered on the state constitution's requirement that voters must be citizens, interpreting this as a firm condition rather than a minimum threshold. The decision effectively ends the city's attempt to expand municipal voting rights to noncitizens and establishes a precedent that could influence similar proposals across the country.
