New York’s Highest Court Blocks NYC Law Allowing Noncitizens to Vote
The State of New York Court of Appeals ruled that New York City’s law allowing noncitizens to vote violates the state’s constitution.
The State of New York appellate court ruled the law unconstitutional in February 2024.
The law allows “municipal voters” to vote in NYC elections: mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council member.
The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the NYC law violated the New York Constitution’s Article II, section 1.
Reading Article II as a whole, it is facially clear that only citizens may vote in elections within the State of New York. Article II of the Constitution governs “Suffrage.” Section 1, titled “Qualifications of voters,” states,
“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” (NY Const, art II, § 1).
I mean, it should not take a genius to interpret the section as saying only citizens can vote.
The Court shot down the appellants’ argument that the section gives voting legislation a floor because other sections in Article II contradict their argument:
Instead, 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 (subject to section 7’s exceptions). From Article II’s provisions stating that “[e]very citizen shall be entitled to vote” (id. § 1), that “elections [are] by the citizens” (id. § 7) and that the legislature’s duty and power is to enforce and realize the franchise held by “the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established” (id. § 5), Article II provides for election by—and only by—citizens.
The Court also reminded the appellants that they had made this decision in other cases. There are plenty of cases they could have researched instead of wasting everyone’s time:
That conclusion is hardly new. In People ex rel. Smith v Pease, we explained:
“The Constitution of this State declares who may exercise the elective franchise. Those entitled to vote at any election are, every male citizen of the age of twenty- one years who shall have been a citizen for ten days and an inhabitant of this State for one year next preceding any election, and for the last four months a resident of the county where he may offer his vote. It follows that none others than those possessing these qualifications can lawfully vote” (27 NY 45, 52-53 [1863] [citing 1846 NY Const, art II, § 1]).
Our language—that the Constitution declares “who may exercise the elective franchise . . . at any election,” and provides that “none others . . . can lawfully vote” (id.)— is definitive and determinative. We reiterated the firm limit restricting voting to citizens in Matter of Hopper v Britt, in which we reiterated that “[t]he qualifications of voters are prescribed by section 1 of article 2 of the Constitution and those qualifications are exclusive” (203 NY 144, 150 [1911]).
In other words, only citizens of New York can vote in New York elections.
Stop wasting people’s time and money.
