In a ruling of 3 to 1, the state Appellate Court, Second Department, declared on February 21, 2024, that a New York City statute, which would have allowed certain noncitizens to cast ballots in city elections, was unconstitutional.
This conclusion mostly sustains a 2022 decision made by the Staten Island Richmond County State Supreme Court.
- Advertisement -
The legislation, dubbed Local Law 11, would have allowed lawful permanent residents—including those in possession of green cards—to vote in the municipal elections for mayor, public advocate, city comptroller, City Council, and borough president. Additionally, it would have needed establishing a different voter registration system by the New York City Board of Elections for a brand-new category of “municipal voter.”
After hearing oral arguments during the summer in response to an appeal filed by New York Mayor Eric Adams, the city Law Department, and several individual residents, the opinion was recently released. The appeal’s goal was to reverse the lower court’s ruling and grant the right to vote in local elections to nearly a million legal permanent residents.
The court took issue with the law’s enactment through legislation rather than a ballot referendum, mandated under the Municipal Home Rule Law when altering the process of electing municipal officials. The majority ruling was authored by Justices Angela Iannacci, Paul Wooten, and Helen Voutsinas.
“The enactment of the Local Law without a referendum improperly obviates the fundamental right of the voters to participate in the electoral process,” The justices wrote the majority opinion.
They said that altering the eligibility to vote in local elections may also alter the composition of the elected bodies, implying that the legislation might let non-citizens serve in municipal leadership roles.
Justice Lillian Wan argued in her dissent that the majority’s view endangered towns’ autonomy in choosing their own local elections.
“The majority, by deeming the noncitizen voting law invalid, effectively prohibits municipalities across the state from deciding for themselves the persons who are entitled to a voice in the local electoral process,” Wan noted.
She also mentioned the resolve of the majority, which “also disenfranchises nearly one million residents of the City, even though its people’s duly elected representatives have opted to enfranchise those same residents.”
Election law experts warned that in the present volatile political environment, supporters may face difficult challenges because of the decision to void the legislation, which was partially motivated by the necessity for a referendum.
“Right now, with all the noise about migrants and the way people feel about that, that’s going to bleed over,” stated Sarah Steiner, a New York City election law attorney who was not party to the lawsuit directly. “I think the timing is not right for a referendum.”
Staten Island borough president Vito Fossella, who filed a lawsuit against the city the day the law went into force in 2022, acknowledged as much, “You can’t just on a whim say, ‘Alright now we’re going to allow hundreds of thousands of people, even though they are noncitizens, the right to vote and choose in local municipal elections.”
The Municipal Law Department’s spokeswoman stated that the department was analyzing the decision and deciding its next action. A mayor’s office representative did not immediately answer an inquiry for comment.
The law’s supporters said they were considering all of their options and did not exclude filing an appeal with the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Cesar Ruiz, a lawyer with LatinoJusticePRLDEF, which is defending locals who would have been granted the right to vote under the legislation, stated, “The right to vote extended by Local Law 11 presented an opportunity to remedy the contradiction between calling many immigrants ‘essential’ to our economy, essential to our workforce, essential to our society.”
“It really gave them the promise of being able to participate meaningfully,” stated Ruiz, who added that he intended to discuss the choice with his customers as they decide on the next course of action.
