After a three-year legal challenge, New York’s highest court decided to reverse a controversial law that allows non-citizens to cast ballots in a 6-to-1 decision. This limited people ‘ rights to vote are now subject to the terms of the new law.
Advertisement
In a big win for voter dignity, liberal judges on the New York State Court of Appeals sided with their traditional acquaintances on March 20 to accept the rules as illegal.  ,
Near 800, 000 “lawful continuous residents” with clean cards, work approval, and DACA status who have resided in the area for at least a month would have been able to cast ballots in local elections under the rules, which was passed by the Democratic-run New York City Council in December 2021.
Non-citizens in those categories would have been able to cast ballots in capital elections for governor, treasurer, advocate for borough president, and City Council, giving the Democrats an even greater majority of the votes cast.
The Democrat act did not grant noncitizens the right to cast ballots in state, legislative, or presidential elections.
Mayor of New York City Eric Adams, who took office in January 2022, did no reject the bill, which allowed it to become law only nine weeks after it was passed.
A group of citizens, led by Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, promptly filed a lawsuit, alleging that the New York State Constitution restricted voting rights for Americans in all elections and that the act largely alienated lawful voters.
Advertisement
They made note of the state constitution’s provision that “every citizen may be entitled to voting” and that it does not apply to non-citizens.
Following a similar 2024 decision by a state administrative judge, a lower court in Staten Island issued a summary judgment against the legislation later that year, preventing it from being enforced.
The City Council appealed the decision to the highest position court because the city’s authorities were subject to severe attention in an election year regarding how emigration was handled.
According to Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Chief Judge Rowan Wilson agreed with the Republicans and stated, “[I]t is clear from the speech and constraints in Article II that the company just applies to people whose right to vote is established by proper facts and who vote by vote.”
Every citizen shall be able to cast a ballot in every election for all officers elected by the electorate, according to Article II of the state constitution.
However, proponents of the non-citizen voter law asserted during hearings in February that the city had the right to choose who could vote in its local elections.
Advertisement
Wilson, however, refuted that claim, saying that “municipal governments are free to pass laws that would allow anyone to vote, including, as the appellants ‘ attorneys stated during oral argument, thirteen-year-old children.”
The New York Constitution as it stands today draws a strong line, Wilson continued, “whatever the future may bring.”
The court’s justice, Justice Michael Garcia, also expressed concern that the law might give local governments too much control over who can and cannot cast ballots in local elections.
The lone dissenter on the panel of seven members was Associate Judge Jenny Rivera.
For what ought to be the final time, common sense prevailed, according to Fossella in a press release.
” From day one, we argued that the New York State Constitution’s plain language does not grant noncitizens the right to vote. We are grateful that the Court of Appeals viewed it in the same way, and by a significant margin,” he continued.
They made an effort to legalize non-citizen voting in New York, but it was in vain. They will now make an effort to continue doing it in violation. Elon Musk stated in a tweet that” Voter ID is still prohibited in New York and California.
Advertisement
The New York City Law Department, which defended the law on behalf of the City Council, said:” The highest court in New York State has spoken. We respect the court’s decision.
The law’s supporter, Cesar Ruiz, an associate counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, described the decision as a “terrible setback for our immigrant communities who contribute so much to the well-being of the city.”
Sadly, this choice aligns with the needs of those in this country who are currently pursuing immigrants and want to end their influence and presence in our society, and it also strengthens systemic barriers that actively deprive immigrants of opportunities for representation, protection, and inclusion, according to Ruiz.  ,
