In a nearly-unanimous decision, the Empire State’s highest court struck down a New York City law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. In a 6-1 decision Thursday, the State of New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Republican arguments that “[a] Local Law to amend the New York city charter, in relation to allowing lawful permanent residents in New York city to vote in municipal elections” (now known as “Local Law 11”) is unconstitutional.

The bill was passed by the New York City Council in December 2021 and, when neither former Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) nor his successor, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams (D), vetoed the bill, it became law in January 2022. According to its text, the Local Law 11 “provide[s] a process for individuals in New York City who are lawful permanent residents or are authorized to work in the United States to vote in municipal elections.”

Local Law 11 explicitly defines a municipal voter as a “person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” but who “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States,” “is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election,” and “meets all qualifications for registering or preregistering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or preregistered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter.”

The day that the bill became law, the Republican Party of New York and the Republican National Committee (RNC) were joined by a host of New York state and city officials and voters of various political parties in suing to block Local Law 11. The lawsuit argued that the law “is unconstitutional and violates Articles II and IX of the New York State Constitution as well as the State Election Law and the Municipal Home Rule Law,” asking the state’s judiciary to declare the law invalid and to permanently halt the New York City Council and city officials from enacting or enforcing provisions of the law.

The judges of New York’s highest court declared in their Thursday ruling, “We hold that Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution limits voting to citizens, and affirm on that ground.” The relevant portion of the New York Constitution stipulates, “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election.” (Emphasis added.)

“The first question is whether Article II, section 1 of New York’s Constitution limits voting to citizens. The text of that Article makes clear what our case law has long held: Article II, section 1 restricts voting to citizens,” the court declared. It continued, “Reading Article II as a whole, it is facially clear that only citizens may vote in elections within the State of New York.” The court noted that the city argued that the state constitution “merely provides a floor, guaranteeing that citizens may vote in all elections but not prohibiting voting by others,” a view which the court deemed “incompatible” with the clear meaning of the state constitution. “Instead,” the court clarified, “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: the franchise extends only to citizens whose right to vote is established by proper proofs and who vote by ballot…” The court emphasized, “Our language — that the Constitution declares ‘who may exercise the elective franchise . . . at any election,’ and provides that ‘none others . . . can lawfully vote’ … — is definitive and determinative.”

The court also rejected the city’s arguments that Article IX of the New York Constitution, which allows localities within the state to govern their own local elections, is exempt from any standards set by Article II. The court explained that Article II is expressly included in Article IX and that the use of terms such as “residents” rather than “citizens” is meant to restrict voting in particular localities to residents of those localities, instead of allowing residents of, for example, Albany to vote in New York City municipal elections. The court observed, “Because no one is a citizen of Westchester County, Rochester or any other locality, it would not have made sense for Article IX to say, ‘elected by the citizens thereof’ or ‘elected by the citizens of the local government.’”

“Americans have fought over the meaning of citizenship and the right to vote since the earliest days of our Republic,” the court said. It concluded, “Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be modified, without costs, in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed.” Previously, a county-level court had ruled against Local Law 11 and barred the City from implementing it. An appellate court had largely agreed with the lower court but modified its ruling. The state’s highest court, with its Thursday ruling, further modified the appellate court’s ruling to not only bar the City from implementing its law but to declare across the state that any such measure is patently unconstitutional.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter explained, “In recent years we’ve seen some municipalities move to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. They argue noncitizens are important members of their city who deserve the right to vote because they rely on city services and contribute to the local economy. They will generally try to assuage the concerns of those worried about noncitizens voting in federal elections by saying that these voters are only voting in local elections.”

“However,” he noted, “anyone who’s paid attention to election administration in recent years has cause for concern as to whether that is actually happening.” Carpenter recalled, “We have seen state secretaries of State, most notably in Michigan, defend obviously disqualified voters from being removed from their state voter file. The question is why not just remove inactive voters who are deceased, or have moved away, or maybe even are noncitizens from the voter file?” He added, “And if state officials won’t simply remove these disqualified voters from the voter file — and will fight anyone trying to remove them — how can anyone trust a local official’s word that noncitizens won’t be given ballots with federal elections on them?”

Carpenter concluded, “This is a fight worth having to secure our elections: for every noncitizen voter that casts a ballot, a citizen voter is disenfranchised.”