Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New York Supreme Court Strikes Down NYC Law Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in Local Elections

New York Supreme Court Strikes Down NYC Law Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in Local Elections

The law is clear: “No person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States and is or will be, on the day of such election…”

The New York Supreme Court of Richmond County struck down New York City’s “Our City, Our Vote” bill allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections. It includes “those with green cards and Dreamers who have lived in New York City for at least 30 consecutive days.”

The bill gave 800,000 non-citizens the ability to vote.

Republican voters, officials, NY Republican State Committee, RNC, and one Democratic city council member challenged the bill.

The Court pointed to the New York Constitution:

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.

The Court also reminded NYC that “the Municipal Home Law sets forth the powers of local governments to adopt and amend local laws in accordance with Article IX of the New York State Constitution.”

Article IX: Every local government except a county wholly included within a city shall have a legislative body elective the people thereof. Every local government shall have the power to adopt local laws provided by this article.

The Article defines people as, “Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of article two of this constitution.”

Entitled to vote: “…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.”

The New York state election law pretty much mirrors the state’s constitution: “No person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States and is or will be, on the day of such election, eighteen years of age or over, and a resident of this state and of the county, city or village for a minimum of thirty days next preceding such election.”

You’re not your own state, NYC. You belong to New York state.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

taurus the judge | June 27, 2022 at 1:24 pm

This is very good ( surprising) but very good.

Hope it starts a trend

Morning Sunshine | June 27, 2022 at 1:26 pm

heh, maybe now the city will ask to decouple itself from upstate, and upstate can return to sanity.

Clarity matters little to those pretending to represent democracy and the rule of law.

Wow, a common-sense ruling based in law from a NY court? Is Hell freezing over?

Keep in mind that in New York, the Court of Appeals is a higher court than any of the New York “Supreme” Courts. This isn’t over if it’s appealed and if the Court of Appeals takes it on. So it’s good, I think, but not quite settled law in New York.

    CommoChief in reply to Bartlett. | June 27, 2022 at 2:10 pm

    Will the city appeal? Maybe but they will almost certainly lose because the explicit text of the NY Constitution doesn’t allow the city to do what they seek.

    sestamibi in reply to Bartlett. | June 29, 2022 at 1:51 am

    That is correct and an important point. The New York “Supreme Court” corresponds to district or superior courts in other states. The Court of Appeals in Albany corresponds to state supreme courts elsewhere.

    However, you might be surprised by a Court of Appeals decision in this matter as that court has been on an ornery independent streak lately. Consider the blatant hyper-partisan congressional district map foisted by the Dems in the legislature contrary to statutory and constitutional provision. The Republicans, in one of their shrewdest moves so unlike the “stupid party” reputation, brought suit against the plan in supreme court in a solidly red county (Steuben). A Republican judge threw out the plan. The Dems appealed, and much to everyone’s surprise, the lower court decision was upheld on a 4-3 vote by the Court of Appeals–ALL of whose members were appointed by Dem governors. I’ll be watching progress of this case carefully.

      artichoke in reply to sestamibi. | July 1, 2022 at 3:52 pm

      They may be shocked by unelected Gov. Hochul’s aggressive radical agenda and want to have a state left at the end of her time in office.

Wasn’t long ago when we couldn’t win cases like this even in “conservative” states. The momentum is certainly shifting when we are winning big in deep blue states. Maybe we will finally witness all of those Hollywood leftists actually make good on their threats to recant their US citizenship and residence and actually leave. We are trying to run a civilization here.

    In many cases they wouldn’t even be argued — the petitioners would be found to lack standing and that would be that.

    CommoChief in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 27, 2022 at 3:39 pm

    SCOTUS is definitely moving the ball. Lots of wins for sanity and original meanings.

    Dobbs – overturned Roe and Casey then reminded the Nation that Federalism is still viable and to pass legislation not ask the CT to do it for you

    Bruen – overturned a wholly repressive portion of the statute and the entirely of ‘may issue’ regimes then directed the Judiciary to stop playing games and apply strict scrutiny

    Kennedy – reinvigorated the free exercise clause pointing out that suppression of individual exercise isn’t allowed and rejected Lemon.

    Carson (RI school funding) emphatically stated that secular entities can’t be exclusively preferred or advantaged over religious entities on the basis of religion

    Vega blew open Miranda by insisting that the only remedy for a Miranda violation is exclusion at trial. No more lawsuits for $ damages over this, just exclude the statement.

    The final case to watch IMO is the EPA case out of WV. The CT may take the opportunity to roll back the administrative state by limiting agencies scope to explicit delegation of power and authority v here where EPA is attempting to invoke authority they were not explicitly given by Congress because it fits their policy preferences

    We have lots to celebrate this term.

Close The Fed | June 27, 2022 at 3:27 pm

Let’s hope an appellate court rules this.

It’s been a funny sort of week, hasn’t Sean?

The NY legislature is pushing in the other direction. They passed a bill that apparently requires preclearance for some local voting rules changes. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-new-york-law

I am still trying to find a text for the bill or even what jurisdictions are targeted for preclearance, is my area included?? What I do know is that in my previously purple area, since 2017 no Republican has been able to win anything, and I’m really wondering if something is funny about the vote counting.

    artichoke in reply to artichoke. | June 27, 2022 at 4:12 pm

    The announcement even mentions the Lt. Governor who “due to voting” was able to represent a 90% white district in upstate. Was it voting, or vote counting?

    artichoke in reply to artichoke. | June 27, 2022 at 4:28 pm

    The text is available here https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S1046

    The definition of who has to go for preclearance includes any place where any minority group gets arrested at higher rates than others. This is the whole thing. It never ends, if you are hauled into court on an elections case, you get put on the preclearance list for 25 years. Or, if your district has racially separate housing (the census “dissimilarity index” you also get put on the preclearance list. Sorry for spamming it here, but it’s egregious, and it’s NY law, although to pacify the opposition, the implementation of preclearance is delayed a few years.

    3. COVERED ENTITY. A “COVERED ENTITY” SHALL INCLUDE: (A) ANY POLITICAL
    SUBDIVISION WHICH, WITHIN THE PREVIOUS TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, HAS BECOME
    SUBJECT TO A COURT ORDER OR GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION BASED UPON A
    FINDING OF ANY VIOLATION OF THIS TITLE, THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT,
    THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, OR A VOTING-
    RELATED VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
    CONSTITUTION; (B) ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WHICH, WITHIN THE PREVIOUS
    TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, HAS BECOME SUBJECT TO AT LEAST THREE COURT ORDERS OR
    GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BASED UPON A FINDING OF ANY VIOLATION OF
    S. 1046–E 11

    ANY STATE OR FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CONCERNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEMBERS OF
    A PROTECTED CLASS; (C) ANY COUNTY IN WHICH, BASED ON DATA PROVIDED BY
    THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, THE COMBINED MISDEMEANOR AND
    FELONY ARREST RATE OF MEMBERS OF ANY PROTECTED CLASS CONSISTING OF AT
    LEAST TEN THOUSAND CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE OR WHOSE MEMBERS COMPRISE AT
    LEAST TEN PERCENT OF THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY,
    EXCEEDS THE PROPORTION THAT THE PROTECTED CLASS CONSTITUTES OF THE CITI-
    ZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE BY AT LEAST TWENTY
    PERCENT AT ANY POINT WITHIN THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS; OR (D) ANY POLITICAL
    SUBDIVISION IN WHICH, BASED ON DATA MADE AVAILABLE BY THE UNITED STATES
    CENSUS, THE DISSIMILARITY INDEX OF ANY PROTECTED CLASS CONSISTING OF AT
    LEAST TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE OR WHOSE MEMBERS
    COMPRISE AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION OF
    THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, IS IN EXCESS OF FIFTY WITH RESPECT TO NON-
    HISPANIC WHITE CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE WITHIN THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
    AT ANY POINT WITHIN THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS. IF ANY COVERED ENTITY IS A
    POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN WHICH A BOARD OF ELECTIONS HAS BEEN ESTAB-
    LISHED, THAT BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED A COVERED ENTITY.
    IF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN WHICH A BOARD OF ELECTIONS HAS BEEN
    ESTABLISHED CONTAINS A COVERED ENTITY FULLY WITHIN ITS BORDERS, THAT
    POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND THAT BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHALL BOTH BE DEEMED A
    COVERED ENTITY.

Elephants are NOT people, and only US citizens can vote. NY State Supreme Court is, apparently, tired of liberalism

Another Voice | June 27, 2022 at 10:28 pm

If it were to be found for whatever loophole they my put forth, and could be up held, all the counties north of Orange would have a populace of those who reside there, overjoyed to finally shed themselves of all that area to the south inclusive of NYC. That area which rules all of our state government and manages to have the state run for their exclusive benefit. Free…. Free At Last!

sounds like clear cut election meddling.