New York’s Highest Court Strikes Down Noncitizen Voting Law, Citing State Constitution

New York’s Highest Court Strikes Down Noncitizen Voting Law, Citing State Constitution

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a landmark decision that underscores the constitutional boundaries of voting rights in New York State, the New York Court of Appeals—the state’s highest judicial authority—has struck down a 2021 New York City law that would have granted voting rights to noncitizen residents in local elections. As reported by The New York Times, the ruling, issued on Thursday in a 6-1 decision, concludes that the law violated the State Constitution by attempting to extend the franchise beyond its clearly defined citizenry.

The law in question, officially known as Local Law 11, had been passed by the New York City Council during the final days of then-Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration. It sought to enfranchise approximately 800,000 legal permanent residents, such as green card holders and individuals with work authorization, allowing them to vote in municipal elections—provided they had resided in the city for at least 30 days. While hailed by immigrant advocacy groups as a bold step toward inclusive democracy, the measure never went into effect due to immediate legal challenges.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson, writing for the majority, left no ambiguity about the constitutional constraints governing the right to vote in New York. “It 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,” Judge Wilson stated. He emphasized that the State Constitution clearly requires citizenship as a prerequisite, framing it not merely as a guideline but as a non-negotiable criterion.

However, in a noteworthy dissenting opinion, Judge Jenny Rivera offered a contrasting perspective. As quoted by The New York Times, Judge Rivera acknowledged the constitutional limits but emphasized that the state’s governing document also authorizes municipal self-governance. “The Constitution specifically authorizes municipal self-governance,” she wrote, “and so the city could exercise this power to enact Local Law 11 — but only by referendum.” Her dissent underscores a critical distinction: while the city may possess the authority to shape its own electoral rules, such a change must ultimately be validated by voters through a formal ballot measure.

The ruling represents a significant legal and political victory for those who opposed the law, particularly Republican Party leaders who filed the initial legal challenge. As noted by The New York Times, Republicans framed the measure as emblematic of what they characterized as Democratic overreach and misaligned priorities in the governance of New York City. They used the case as a rhetorical tool in broader national debates about voting rights, immigration, and the integrity of elections.

The Republican challenge aligned with a broader conservative strategy seen across the United States, where legal and legislative efforts have increasingly been directed at restricting access to the ballot box. As The New York Times reported, measures such as stringent voter ID laws and voter roll purges have become prominent features of this movement, reflecting a larger political trend toward narrowing the electorate under the guise of electoral security.

Although Mayor de Blasio and his successor, Mayor Eric Adams, both raised constitutional concerns about Local Law 11, neither chose to veto or sign it, effectively allowing it to become law by default. The New York Times report highlighted this political ambivalence, noting that while the legislation represented a progressive milestone, it also posed legal risks that were never fully addressed by the executive branch.

Following its passage, Local Law 11 faced swift legal action. In 2022, a lower court—the New York Supreme Court—struck it down, asserting that such a fundamental change in voter eligibility required a statewide referendum, not just city-level legislation. That decision laid the groundwork for the eventual appeal to the Court of Appeals, which has now definitively closed the chapter on this legislative effort.

However, Judge Rivera conceded that even this aspiration must ultimately be pursued through a statewide vote—a constitutional amendment process requiring broad public consensus. As noted in The New York Times report, her opinion signals that while the goal of immigrant enfranchisement may be morally and politically compelling to many, it cannot circumvent the legal foundations that currently govern electoral participation in New York.

The decision carries far-reaching implications not only for New York City, but also for other municipalities across the country considering similar measures. By affirming the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting eligibility, the New York Court of Appeals has set a powerful precedent that will likely influence future legislative initiatives and judicial interpretations in other states.

As reported by The New York Times, Mayor Adams’ office responded to the ruling with a brief statement: “The highest court in New York State has made its decision, and we respect the court’s ruling.” It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will pursue a constitutional amendment or explore alternative strategies for expanding civic participation among immigrant communities.

The decision has been sharply criticized by legal scholars and civil rights organizations. Cesar Ruiz, associate counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, who argued the case on appeal, expressed profound disappointment, calling the ruling “a terrible setback for our immigrant communities who contribute so much to the well-being of the city,” according to the report in The New York Times.

In a similar vein, Roderick M. Hills Jr., a constitutional law professor at New York University who supported the law through an amicus brief, argued that the court disregarded historical precedent. He pointed out in a statement to The New York Times that New York women were allowed to vote in state elections even before the Constitution was formally amended to permit it, thereby challenging the notion that voter qualifications must always be aligned with the constitution’s strictest letter. “The court simply ignored the longstanding principle that voting qualifications for local offices have never been identical to the state constitutional qualifications to vote,” Hills wrote. Still, he noted that the court stopped short of stripping the city of its broader authority to design local electoral systems—a modest silver lining in an otherwise restrictive judgment.

As The New York Times report detailed, the ruling was met with jubilation by Republican officials, many of whom had framed Local Law 11 as a radical overreach by Democratic lawmakers. State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt declared triumphantly, “Even the stacked Court of Appeals cannot deny the fact that the sacred right to vote is one that belongs to the American citizen only.”

Echoing this sentiment, Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella, a lead plaintiff in the legal challenge, praised the decision as a vindication of constitutional clarity. “There are policies and decisions that are being made by some of the people in power at the city and state that really go over the line for people who might be middle of the road,” Fossella told The New York Times. He characterized the law as emblematic of a broader disconnect between progressive lawmakers and mainstream New Yorkers.

“The ruling really is just a validation of what we have maintained since Day 1,” Fossella added, “which is that the New York State Constitution is crystal clear on who can and cannot vote.”

The court’s decision raises profound questions about the balance between local autonomy and state constitutional supremacy, as well as the evolving role of immigrants in urban governance. Although the ruling did not fully eliminate New York City’s ability to legislate its own voting procedures, it clearly delineated the constitutional limits within which such efforts must operate.

Even those sympathetic to expanding voter eligibility acknowledged that future reform efforts will now require a much more rigorous process—namely, a statewide referendum to amend the Constitution, according to The New York Times report. In effect, this decision sets a high bar for any future attempt to reimagine the composition of the local electorate, relegating noncitizen voting rights to a distant political aspiration rather than an imminent legislative reality.