The Supreme Court of New York struck down a New York City law that allowed noncitizens to vote.
The Court ruled that the new law violated New York State election law and the Municipal Home Rule, saying it would require a referendum to pass something that would shift voting so significantly.
The law was voted into place by the New York City Council last December and would have allowed any legal resident, including green card holders, in the city to vote in city elections if they have been there for 30 days.
It would have gone into effect in 2023 and would have added roughly 800,000 new voters to the rolls. They would still not have been allowed to vote in state or federal elections.
Following the vote, the Republican National Committee along with the New York Republican party and a large group of City Council members who voted against the legislation sued to have it canceled. This week the NY Supreme Court ruled in their favor.
“Today’s decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our state constitution and state statutes: Noncitizen voting in New York is illegal, and shame on those who thought they could skirt the law for political gain. Opposition to this measure was bipartisan and cut across countless neighborhood and ethnic lines, yet progressives chose to ignore both our constitution and public sentiment in order to suit their aims. I commend the court in recognizing reality and reminding New York’s professional protestor class that the rule of law matters”‘ said GOP City Council minority leader Joseph Borelli in a statement.
Others shared similar sentiments:
New York City is the first major metropolis in the United States to try and allow noncitizens to vote, although over a dozen communities across the country have successfully passed similar laws. Some states like Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and Florida have passed their own laws to prevent cities from making similar moves.
While it’s understandable why they would want to give long-term residents some form of local representation, the 30-day requirement calls into question if their intention wasn’t merely to shift votes. What do you think the liberal city council members were hoping to do with their new law?
