New York City Law Allowing Illegal Aliens to Vote in City Elections Ruled Unconstitutional
State of New York appellate court rules 3-1 that new law allowing illegals in NYC to vote is unconstitutional
In a rare bit of good news regarding the illegal immigrant crisis unleashed by Joe Biden, a New York state appellate court has ruled that a new law enacted by New York City allowing illegal immigrants residing in NYC to vote for City officials is unconstitutional on procedural and substantive grounds.
Meanwhile, when the NYC libs weren't looking – "NYC non-citizen (illegal immigrant) voting law is struck down!!😅 What a great year for common sense & law and order!
— Ron Milner (@RonMilnerBoodle) June 28, 2022
The Gothamist has the story: Appellate court finds NYC’s noncitizen voting law unconstitutional:
A New York City law that would have granted certain noncitizens the right to vote in city elections was found unconstitutional on Wednesday in a 3-to-1 opinion issued by the state Appellate Court, Second Department.
Incidentally, the New York State Appellate Court, Second Department covers all of Long Island, Staten Island, Westchester County, and several counties north of Manhattan. It had jurisdiction over this case because the case was brought in (relatively) conservative Staten Island, in New York state court.
The Gothamist continues:
That opinion upholds most of a lower court ruling issued in 2022 by the Richmond County State Supreme Court on Staten Island.
The law, known as Local Law 11, would have granted legal permanent residents, including those with green cards, the right to cast a ballot in the races for mayor, public advocate, city comptroller, City Council and borough president. It would have also required the New York City Board of Elections to set up a separate voter registration system for a new class of “municipal voter.”
Ah, “municipal voter,” Orwellian double-speak for illegal immigrant voter, I guess.
The opinion issued Wednesday came after oral arguments held over the summer in response to an appeal filed by Mayor Eric Adams, the city Law Department and several individual residents seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision and allow nearly a million legal permanent residents the right to participate in local elections.
Did you catch that? 1 million new democrat votes. That’s the game.
But not so fast. The law was not enacted using the proper procedures:
In the majority opinion, written by Justices Angela Iannacci, Paul Wooten and Helen Voutsinas, the court took issue with how the law was enacted through legislation as opposed to a ballot referendum, which is required under the Municipal Home Rule Law when changing the method of how people are elected to local offices.
“The enactment of the Local Law without a referendum improperly obviates the fundamental right of the voters to participate in the electoral process,” the justices wrote in the majority opinion.
So apparently in New York, if you are going to change the way elections are run, there has to be a public referendum — the democrat-controlled legislature can’t just make fundamental changes (which the Mayor would obviously rubber stamp) without the public’s say so. That didn’t happen here.
The law also potentially violated the constitution because the way it was written it might allow illegals to occupy City office:
They also noted that changing who could cast a ballot in local elections could also change who could hold those elected offices, suggesting the law could allow noncitizens to hold city elected positions.
NY imported all those illegal immigrants, but appeals court rules they're not allowed to vote. Womp, womp!https://t.co/yv69e23Jb3
— MadGeometer (@MadGeometer) February 22, 2024
Of course there was a dissent:
In her dissent, Justice Lillian Wan wrote that the majority’s opinion threatened to limit municipalities’ ability to make decisions for themselves about their local elections.
“The majority, by deeming the noncitizen voting law invalid, effectively prohibits municipalities across the state from deciding for themselves the persons who are entitled to a voice in the local electoral process,” Wan wrote.
So if a municipality wants to violate the State Constitution to change election law, it should be allowed to do so, I guess?
She added that the majority’s determination, “also disenfranchises nearly one million residents of the City, despite the fact that its people’s duly elected representatives have opted to enfranchise those same residents.”
God forbid illegal immigrants get “disenfranchised.”
The good news is it sounds like this ruling by the Second Department appellate court might be tough to challenge further up the court of appeals food chain:
Election law experts said the decision to nullify the law, in one part based on the need for a referendum, could set up a challenging path forward for supporters in the current charged political climate.
“Right now, with all the noise about migrants and the way people feel about that, that’s going to bleed over,” said Sarah Steiner, an election law attorney in New York City who was not directly involved with the case. “I think the timing is not right for a referendum.”
Despite that, the City is “reviewing the ruling and determining next steps,” but a spokesperson for the mayor’s office did not respond to a request for comment from the Gothamist.
And the man who brought the initial lawsuit, Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, stated the obvious take on the appellate court’s ruling:
“You can’t just on a whim say, ‘Alright now we’re going to allow hundreds of thousands of people, even though they are noncitizens, the right to vote and choose in local municipal elections,” said Vito Fossella, the Staten Island borough president who sued the city the day after the law took effect in 2022.
Illegal immigrant advocates were sad:
Advocates supporting the law said they were also exploring their options and did not rule out an appeal to the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.
“The right to vote extended by Local Law 11 presented an opportunity to remedy the contradiction between calling many immigrants ‘essential’ to our economy, essential to our workforce, essential to our society,” said Cesar Ruiz, an attorney with LatinoJusticePRLDEF, which is representing residents who would have gained voting rights under the law.
“It really gave them the promise of being able to participate meaningfully,” said Ruiz, who said he planned to talk the decision over with his clients as they determine what comes next.
But maybe the decision is already having beneficial effects:
I’m sure this is “Totally unrelated” to the recent NY appeals court decision to reverse the recent NYC law to allow illegal immigrants to vote in NYC local elections. 🤣 https://t.co/Jt7WCbL9zz
— Richard Burks (@realRBBurks) February 22, 2024
For now, the attempt to allow illegals to vote in NYC elections is dead. We will update you if the case progresses any further, which it might.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Who proposed such an idea, and where are investigating journalists?
Communists.
The ruling is immaterial. NYC won’t enforce the ruling.
What should they investigate? It’s a simple idea, and not unreasonable. But it needs to be done by referendum. The existing 5M voters should be asked whether they want 1M more.
but they all live in America… last I checked. That means SUBJECT to the duly enacted and ratified US Constitution. non citizens simply do NOT have the right to vote. Some might say “well, its only for HERE”.. they fail to acknowledge that HERE is a part of the United States of America. Until they secede that is. Hey. this might be a great time to DO that…. no ex-corporate railroad lawyer to order arms to be taken up to FORCE them to remain against their epxessed choice, right?
There is nothing in the constitution that says aliens can’t vote, even in federal elections, if their state allows it. And in the early days of the republic some states did allow it. The founders knew that and seemed to have no problem with it.
I’m not sure I would entrust the city’s finances to a comptroller whom a million illegals had not voted for.
It’s treasonous.
No, it is not treasonous at all. It’s quite reasonable to argue that people who are lawful residents of the city, who work and pay taxes there and have to abide by its laws, should have a say in making those laws and setting those taxes. There’s nothing treasonous about it. At the time of the founding several states and municipalities allowed aliens to vote, even in state and federal elections, including presidential ones, and nobody thought that was treasonous or even wrong. This was a much more modest proposal, to let them vote only in municipal elections.
” It’s quite reasonable to argue that people who are lawful residents of the city”
Illegal aliens aren’t lawful residents, Democrat. They’re illegal aliens.
And nobody ever proposed that they should be allowed to vote. (Though allowing them to do so still wouldn’t be treasonous. But it’s irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.)
if they want that voice, then let them follow the US federal procedures to become full citizens. Then they can vote, hold public office, etc to their heart’s content. Gaining citizenship is a statement that they are here for the long haul, not just to take the goodies they could vote themselves into for the short term, then shuffle back off to Buffalo when the mess they’ve made is intolerable…. as it will surely become.
Yeah, and on top of that, if non-citizens can vote, even in local elections, it would make it even easier for a country like China to have a bunch of its people do the mimimum legwork to become permanent residents, and start pushing foreign interests. China already exports a ton of illegals, and which American businesses cater to China too much already, They don’t need any more assistance.
Why should they become citizens, if the people of the city are OK with them voting as they are? There should have been a referendum; but if the voters were to approve it then there’s no reason it shouldn’t happen.
read much? Go back to the ttop (I just did to double check) and learn just WHO this law would have added to the voter rolls.
Now come back and correct your statement.
I’m not sure who that’s addressed to, or what you checked, but the law would have added only legal aliens. Anyone claiming it would have added illegal aliens is not telling the truth. And unfortunately that includes Mr Nault.
Holy sh*t! This chick is insane. She has no business sitting on any court bench. This is just crazy.
Maybe they’ll let tourists have a vote if they happen to fly in on election day … or, skip that, maybe the municipality will just let any Venezuelan (in Venezuela) vote by mail-in ballot, since they could very easily breach our border and come to the municipality illegally in order to cast a vote, so just let them vote from where they are. Hell, the whole world gets to mail-in votes for local elections because … “We Are The World!”
This nation is headed straight for the brick wall at maximum velocity.
By her logic, NYC could also BAN certain people from voting, like white, blue-eyed men or Republicans, or allow non-residents, like people from Nebraska to vote in their elections.
Its all part of allowing …” municipalities across the state from deciding for themselves the persons who are entitled to a voice in the local electoral process,”
I wouldn’t be so certain. Retiring student loan debt without Congressional approval was also deemed unconstitutional and yet Biden is still retiring student loan debt. When it comes to winning elections, Democrats look at the law as a speed bump, not a barrier.
No, it wasn’t. The particular statute Biden was relying on to do it was ruled not to allow that, so he isn’t using it any more. He’s using other statutes, which do seem to allow much more limited write-offs. If anyone thinks they don’t, they can challenge them.
so he court which made that decision MUST grab Joltin Joe by he scruff, haul him before the bar, and find him in cintempt of that ruling, fine ,and preferably jail him too
No, because he is not in contempt of the ruling. He is abiding by it 100%.
There’s always the issue of enforcement. They’ll probably just let them vote anyway like they do in other places.
If only congress would
Pass a law: If you enter the USA illegally you’re banned from voting for life.
Retroactive so it doesn’t matter when you came illegally
20-year mandatory sentence if you vote anyway
Cast a prohibited persons ballot? (poll workers) 5-year mandatory sentence
Of course i would mark them Inglourious Basterds style but that might not fly….
‘Retroactive’ laws will never survive judicial review because of the ex post facto clause ( Article I, Section 9, Clause 3).
Nonsense. The ex post facto prohibition is also nothing but a speed bump, as proved by the Lautenberg amendment, which retroactively destroyed the gun rights of tens of thousands of people who ever pled to a domestic violence charge just to get it over with, because at the time there was no appreciable penalty. The court simply ruled it was “not a punishment,” just a change in administrative status.
Not a punishment, not an assault, not an individual right, not a taking, nothing to see here.
First, Lautenberg is a horrible law which may see its demise in the foreseeable future. But, do you really think this kind of prohibition would be treated as favorable by the courts as the Lautenberg Amendment was? The reality is even though lower court decisions on Lautenberg directly violate existing Supreme Court decisions only allowing ex post facto laws that are ‘not impairing vested rights,’ SCOTUS has refused to hear the cases on the merit. I’m skeptical that a similar challenge to voting rights would receive the same level of disinterest even considering the current makeup of the Court (which isn’t always all that conservative).
The ex post facto clause in the Constitution refers only to criminal law. This was discussed (I will not say “debated,” because there was complete agreement of those delegates who spoke on the matter) in the convention (as recorded by James Madison). It was proposed that the clause should specify “criminal” law, but that was rejected as superfluous (as in “everyone knows the phrase only refers to criminal laws”). It was also suggested that the restriction should expressly include civil law (in order to overcome the phrase’s common understanding that it only applies to criminal law). That too was rejected, with one delegate saying that sometimes such civil laws are necessary.
Maybe we should pass a law that all people who earn money in the US must pay federal tax on it. Give out tax ID numbers and require everyone to pay tax on earned income and hire thousands of IRS agents to enforce it. Start with people who send billions of dollars to foreign countries but don’t pay a penny of tax in the country where they live.
In her dissent, Justice Lillian Wan wrote that the majority’s opinion threatened to limit municipalities’ ability to make decisions for themselves about their local elections.
Note here, this is sometimes what they mean by “democracy.” They mean letting the people have whatever they’ve been told they want and letting them get it good and hard. Whereas a “republic” has rules that can’t simply be ignored, in order to protect the rights of the people. Under democracy the people can simply vote in a king and be done with it. (Hey, they voted!) In a republic you can’t simply give away your sovereignty. (At least, not without major political campaigns to convince you to ignore the protections.)
And, no, this isn’t necessarily a project to get more Democrat voters. No, this is a project to weaken American exceptionalism so that we’ll acquiesce to a global government. The only difference between this and the silly claims by some that the entire world should be able to vote on what America does is it insists you get here, first. With Biden’s cabal in office, that part has never been easier.
Leqve it up to democrats to create a new constitutiinal wrinkle. The founders both of the country and the states never contemplated that someones wouldnpush the idea that any person present in the country could vote.
That’s not true at all. At the time the constitution was written, several cities (and even states, I think) did allow aliens to vote. The founders had no problem with that.
This should cement Justice Lillian Wan’s entitlement to the Second Department’s award for the Justice who carries the most woke water. It’s a fierce competition among the Second Department Justices each year, but Justice Wan will be hard to beat this time around.
Lefties have already given illegal aliens all other rights and privleges of citizenship. Now they want illegal aliens to be able to vote, and potentially elect illegal alien as mayor of america’s biggest city. What could go wrong there?
go back to the top and READ the words that describe WHO this rule would have allowed to vote. It is NOT whom YOU say will be.
don’t take this to mean I support illegals voting here.. nor non-citizens. I do not.
Just trying to maintain accuracy here.
I’m a US citizen. Although I’ve been a legal permanent resident for 12 years in the foreign country where I live (which is also a major source of illegal immigration to the US), I cannot legally so much as express an opinion on the country’s political matters. Much less vote here.
You are guest in their country. You can vote at the US embassy or by mail. You might also be required to pay taxes to 2 countries at times. That’s what it means to be legal expat foreign resident or worker. You are guest in different country, only as long as they want to put up with you. Must be prepared to pack up and return home should your foreign employer not be able to sponsor you, or other reasons. Its not your country. Biden has made mockery of immigration law.
I was referring to voting in the elections of the foreign country in which I reside.
whats that word??
un ..what
un constitutional??????
nothinggggggggggg is unconstitutional to lefty who have proved that they willl do what they want when they want to whom they want
illegals already vote
with every crime
with every baby brought over
with every baby to be produced in the usa
that enlarges the welfare state
THATTTT IS THE VOTE
ameicans will continue to pay the welfare tab
I am torn.
Downstate virtue-bots getting slapped down is always fun, but so is watching them get what they asked for, gooder and harder.”
The problem with the latter is that it is aways accompanied by overspray.
I agree that non-citizens should not be voting, but the accuracy bug is making me point out that the law does not allow ILLEGAL immigrants to vote. From the court opinion itself:
Again, it’s still bad law, because even allowing legal non-citizens to vote hurts actual citizens and opens the door for foreign takeover without a single shot fired, but it’s important to be accurate about what you are criticizing, lest your errors distract from the valid criticism.
This is nonsense. These people came here illegally only to be given “temporary” legal status by a rogue administration in violation of our immigration laws. And we all know there’s really nothing temporary about that status.
I was not aware of any illegal entrants given green card or “lawful permanent resident” status after the fact. If you have a reliable source that this is happening, by all means share. This law would not apply to temporaries waiting for their court dates or asylum claims to be processed.
Actually it would. It said ““is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”. That means people who came here illegally but have since been given temporary legal status. Right now they’re not illegal any more; they have the legal right to remain here until their court date, and to work here (and pay taxes). This law would have allowed them to vote in city elections, so long as they still had that status, but not once they lost it.
Don’t believe article is clear. Green Card ( legal Permanent Resident Visa) holders are not citizens, but are not illegal immigrants. The two classes are conflated here.
some folks just wanna bleat, without really grasping that about which they are bleating.
That is an outright lie. There was no attempt to make such a law. Not even a suggestion.
As you yourself immediately quote:
I don’t know what that word “including” is doing there. Legal permanent residents are those with “green cards” (which are not actually green but are still called that; see also “pink slip”). But there’s no doubt about who was covered.
And there you go with your lies again. There’s nothing unclear or Orwellian about the perfectly ordinary English term “municipal voter”. It means exactly what it says, and as the piece you yourself just quoted makes clear, it does not mean “illegal immigrant”.
And there you have it again, but you still ignore it.
Why would you assume they would vote Democrat? What have the Democrats ever done for them? They live, work, and pay taxes in NYC, and have to live with leftist policies just like everyone else.
More to the point, NYC is a Democrat town anyway, so the only effect of letting them vote would be to give them a voice in the Democrat primaries, where there’s absolutely no reason to suppose they’d tend to favor the loonie left over the saner factions.
“Why would you assume they would vote Democrat? What have the Democrats ever done for them?”
You mean, other than let them into the friggin’ country??
Democrats didn’t do that. We are talking about legal immigrants, which means that they came under all kinds of administrations, and subject to the laws passed by both parties in Congress. There’s no reason to suppose they would support Democrats.
No, we are also talking about illegal immigrants who have been permitted to work. Which is any of them who didn’t sneak around the “authorized illegal immigration points of entry.”
If they have work permits then they are currently and temporarily legal.
First of all, there was never any plan to give the building to migrants. Breitbart is just making that up.
Second, the announcement that it would not be going to migrants (and was never going to) was in fact totally unrelated to this decision, about which Richard Burks lies his face off. It was entirely caused by a local protest against the false rumor that the building would be turned into a migrant hostel.
This article is so erroneous, I sincerely hope it was not written by a law student. It states that the voided law: “would have granted legal permanent residents, including those with green cards, the right to cast a ballot.” — and then carps: “Orwellian double-speak for illegal immigrant voter, I guess”! — and all the commenters fall in line to agree, like sheep.
WRONG. Illegals don’t have green cards; those are only given to legal immigrants who did NOT sneak across the border but went through the standard immigration process.
So let’s not make things worse than they already are.
Staten Island for the win!
Leftists.
“The outrageous we do immediately;
the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”