A New York law which would have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections was declared unconstitutional on Thursday by the highest court of the State, which massively confirmed a lower court decision.
The law, which was Passed in 2021 But never entered into force, would have given the approximately 800,000 legal residents of the city more per word to say in the governance of their home.
Writing 6-1 for the majority, Rowan D. Wilson, chief judge of the New York Court of Appeal, concluded that the Constitution of the State made citizenship a voting condition. New York City Lawyers and an immigrant civil rights group, which had appealed Crop of the lower landhad argued that the constitution of the state was larger in which had the right to vote.
“It clearly emerges from the language and restrictions contained in article II that the” citizen “is not conceived as a floor, but as a condition of eligibility for voters: the franchise only extends to citizens whose voting right is established by appropriate evidence and which votes by ballot,” wrote Judge Wilson, referring to the part of the Constitution which describes the voting rules.
“The highest court of New York State made its decision, and we respect the court’s decision,” said Kayla Mamelak, a spokesperson Eric Adams.
The voting measure, known as local law 11, was adopted by the municipal council towards the end of the second and last mandate of the mayor Bill de Blasio. Mr. de Blasio and his successor, Mr. Adams, questioned the constitutional authority of the Council to adopt the measure, but neither of them chose to sign it or veto – allowing him to become law.
After entering into force, the law – which allowed holders of green cards or those who have the right to work in the United States to vote in the local elections as long as it lived in New York for 30 days – was quickly challenged by a group of Republican party leaders. They characterized the decision as an example of the poorly placed priorities of the party which leads the city and the State, and used it as a campaign cake against the Democrats.
The strategy has placed the group in accordance with the Republicans across the country that used legal and legislative methods to make the vote more difficult. Consequently, the laws on the identification of voters and the purge of voter recording lists have become much more common.
In 2022, the Supreme New York Court Meet local law 11reasoning that such a change would require a state referendum. During the oral arguments in this case earlier this year, the judges of the Court of Appeal fought with this idea, swiveling the lawyers on both sides with questions on the question of whether the law constituted a change in the method by which people vote.
But the majority decision was largely based on the constitutional requirement that being a citizen was a prerequisite to vote.
In her dissident opinion, J. Jenny Rivera said that local law 11 had “a means for this important part of the city’s population to have a voice in their government”. But she concluded that her supporters should bring the change proposed to voters.
“The Constitution specifically authorizes the municipal self -government, and the city could therefore exercise this power to promulgate local law 11 – but only by referendum,” wrote the judge Rivera.
Cesar Ruiz, a lawyer associated with Latinojustice Prldef who argued the call casesaid in a statement that the judges’ decision was “a terrible setback for our immigrant communities which contribute so much to the well-being of the city”.
Roderick M. Hills Jr., professor of law at New York University, who signed a legal dissertation in favor of maintaining law, stressed that New York women were able to vote in the state elections before the Constitution was modified to allow them officially.
“The court simply ignored the long-standing principle that the voting qualifications for local offices have never been identical to the constitutional qualifications of the State to vote,” Hills wrote in an email.
The law professor said that the decision could have been worse, noting that the panel did not start to “limit the power of New York to develop its own rules for local elections”.
On Thursday, many Republicans took a tour of victory, with Rob Ortt, the head of the Republican minority in the state Senate, saying: “Even the stacked court of appeal cannot deny the fact that the sacred right to vote is that which belongs only to the American citizen.”
Vito J. Fossella, president of the district of Staten Island, said that the Voting Act illustrated the way in which certain Democratic leaders were out of step with traditional New Yorkers.
“There are policies and decisions that are taken by some people in power of the city and state who really go beyond the line for people who could be in the middle of the road,” said Fossella, republican and seeker in the case.
“The decision is really only a validation of what we have maintained since day 1, namely that the constitution of New York State is clear on which can and cannot vote.”
