Court Invalidates Controversial Law in 6-1 Ruling

New York’s highest court has struck down a controversial NYC law that would have allowed 800,000 noncitizens to vote in local elections, affirming that the state constitution reserves voting rights exclusively for American citizens.

Quick Takes

The New York Court of Appeals ruled 6-1 that NYC’s Local Law 11 violates the state constitution, which explicitly limits voting to citizens.
The law would have enfranchised approximately 800,000 noncitizens with green cards, work authorizations, or DACA status to vote in local NYC elections.
Republicans led by Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella successfully challenged the law, first passed by the City Council in 2021.
The court decision effectively ends attempts to grant noncitizens voting rights through state courts.
The ruling focused on constitutional constraints rather than the policy merits of noncitizen voting.

Constitutional Constraints Overrule NYC’s Voting Law

The New York Court of Appeals delivered a definitive blow to a controversial NYC voting measure with a near-unanimous 6-1 decision. The court ruled that Local Law 11, which would have permitted noncitizens to vote in municipal elections, directly conflicted with the New York State Constitution. Known as “Our City Our Vote,” the law was enacted in 2022 after passing the City Council in 2021, and would have granted voting rights to green card holders, those with work authorizations, and DACA recipients living in the city for at least 30 days.

The court’s majority opinion was unequivocal in its constitutional interpretation, stating, “Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.” This clear language reinforces that regardless of policy preferences, the constitutional framework currently in place does not permit expanding the franchise to noncitizens, even for local elections. The ruling emphasized that such a significant change would require constitutional amendment rather than municipal legislation.

Victory for Opponents, Setback for Immigrant Advocates

Republicans who challenged the law celebrated the court’s decision as a validation of their constitutional arguments. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, who led the legal challenge, described the ruling as “a victory for common sense, and the sanctity and security of our franchise — the right to vote as American citizens. We are pleased that this matter can finally be put to rest, once and for all.”

The decision marks a significant setback for immigrant advocates who had championed the law as an important step toward inclusivity in a city where approximately 40% of residents are foreign-born. Proponents had argued that noncitizens who pay taxes, participate in community affairs, and have children in public schools deserve representation in local government decisions. The invalidated law would have potentially extended voting rights to around 800,000 noncitizens in New York City, representing a substantial electoral expansion.

Focus on Citizen Participation Instead

Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa suggested a different approach to electoral reform, emphasizing the need to increase participation among existing citizens rather than expanding voting rights to noncitizens. Sliwa pointed to New York City’s historically low voter turnout rates as evidence that the focus should be on engaging disaffected citizens before considering expansion of the franchise. This perspective highlights the ongoing challenge of voter apathy among those already eligible to participate.

State Senator Andrew Lanza expressed disbelief that the issue was even being debated, stating, “It’s hard to discuss because it’s crazy it’s even an issue.” The court’s decision effectively closes the door on noncitizen voting through judicial channels in New York State. Advocates for such measures would now need to pursue a constitutional amendment, a significantly more challenging path that would require broad statewide support, unlike the city-level legislation that was struck down.