In a major decision that reaffirmed the basic rules of democracy, New York State\u2019s highest court has struck down a New York City law that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. The ruling, issued by the New York Court of Appeals on March 20, 2025, came down in a 6\u20131 decision that clearly stated what should have been obvious all along: only U.S. citizens can vote in elections in New York State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law, known as Local Law 11, was passed by New York City\u2019s Democrat-controlled city council in the final weeks of former Mayor Bill de Blasio\u2019s term. It allowed certain noncitizens, specifically, legal permanent residents and people authorized to work in the United States, to vote in city elections if they had lived in New York City for at least 30 days. That meant more than 800,000 noncitizen residents would have been able to vote for local offices, including mayor and city council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supporters of the law argued that it was a way to give a voice to people who contribute to the city every day. Adrienne Adams, the current City Council Speaker, said the law was intended to \u201cstrengthen our city\u2019s democratic process and increase civic engagement by enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and contribute to our communities but are unable to make their voices heard in local elections.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But despite the good intentions, the law ran into a serious problem: the New York State Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Almost as soon as the law took effect in early 2022, Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit to block it. They argued that the law clearly violated Article II of the state constitution, which says: \u201cEvery citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people.\u201d According to the challengers, this sentence makes it obvious that only citizens have the right to vote in New York State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, fully agreed with that interpretation. He explained that the word \u201ccitizen\u201d in the state constitution is not just a starting point or a suggestion\u2014it\u2019s a requirement. In his words, \u201cIt is plain from the language and restrictions contained in Article II that \u2018citizen\u2019 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judge Wilson even warned what could happen if the city\u2019s argument were accepted: \u201cUnder that interpretation, municipalities are free to enact legislation that would enable anyone to vote\u2014including, as counsel for appellants stated during oral argument, thirteen-year-old children.\u201d In other words, if cities can decide who gets to vote without limits, there\u2019s no telling how far that power could go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not everyone on the court agreed. Judge Jenny Rivera was the only judge to vote against striking down the law. In her dissent, she argued that the constitution gives local governments the flexibility to expand voting rights for their own elections. She pointed out that the constitution excludes \u201cpersons\u201d convicted of certain crimes from voting, which, she said, could mean that noncitizens are included in the broader category of voters under certain circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rivera also said that by blocking the law, the court was \u201cdiminishing the power of localities statewide.\u201d She believed that local governments should have the authority to decide how their elections are run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, the majority didn\u2019t buy that argument. They saw the constitution\u2019s wording as firm and final\u2014citizens vote, and that\u2019s that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With this ruling, noncitizens are officially barred from voting in New York City elections. Though Local Law 11 briefly went into effect in 2022, it was never implemented because of ongoing legal battles. Now, after being rejected in lower courts and ultimately struck down by the state\u2019s highest court, the law is dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Republican leaders, who brought the lawsuit, celebrated the decision. \u201cAs the court had held from the very beginning, the law is clear that voting is a sacred right that is for United States citizens,\u201d said Assemblymember Michael Tannousis, a Republican from Staten Island who was one of the plaintiffs. He added, \u201cAs the son of immigrants that came to New York for the American dream and worked hard to become naturalized citizens, I am content with today\u2019s ruling.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis echoed that view. \u201cThere is nothing more important than preserving the integrity of our election system, and in today\u2019s age, the government should be working to create more trust in our elections, not less,\u201d she said. \u201cThe right to vote is a sacred right given only to United States citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supporters of the noncitizen voting law were deeply disappointed. Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, called the ruling \u201ca devastating setback for voting rights.\u201d He said it \u201cdisenfranchises the communities that help keep New York running\u201d and accused the court of undermining \u201cthe very principles of inclusion that make our democracy strong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While their frustration is understandable, the problem with their argument is simple: voting isn\u2019t just about living in a place or paying taxes. It\u2019s about full membership in a political community. That\u2019s what citizenship represents. Giving that power to people who haven\u2019t taken that step may seem kind or fair\u2014but it risks weakening the very meaning of the vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court\u2019s decision sends a message far beyond New York City. It says that no matter how progressive a city might be, it cannot simply rewrite the rules of democracy to suit its goals. The constitution sets boundaries for a reason. If every city were allowed to decide who could vote based on local feelings, we\u2019d have a patchwork system where the rules change from one block to the next. That\u2019s not how democracy works\u2014and that\u2019s certainly not how you build trust in elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As Joe Borelli, a former Republican city council member and one of the plaintiffs, put it: \u201cWe file some lawsuits that are stretches. This one was, from the beginning, an open-shut case.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
New York City\u2019s effort to let noncitizens vote may have been driven by a desire to include more people in the democratic process, but the state constitution doesn\u2019t allow it. And frankly, it shouldn\u2019t. Voting is one of the most important rights a person can have, and it should be reserved for those who have made the full commitment to this country by becoming citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Changing that rule isn\u2019t just unconstitutional. It\u2019s unwise. And in the long run, doing anything else would be, quite simply, stupid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a major decision that reaffirmed the basic rules of democracy, New York State\u2019s highest court has struck down a New York City law that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. The ruling, issued by the New York Court of Appeals on March 20, 2025, came down in a 6\u20131 decision that clearly stated what should have been obvious all along: only U.S. citizens can vote in elections in New York State. What the Law Tried to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5911,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-democrats","category-elections","category-politics"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/onlycitizensvtoasdfcvbx.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5910"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5910\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5912,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5910\/revisions\/5912"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nakedpolitics.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}