The New York City Council asked the state’s highest court on Tuesday to uphold a city law that allows qualifying noncitizens to vote in its elections.
If the New York Court of Appeals rules in favor of the city, about a third of the city’s adult population would be allowed to participate in municipal elections.
“These New Yorkers pay billions in taxes and yet have no say in local policies on public safety, garbage collection or housing — all matters that affect their day-to-day lives,” the city council said in its brief.
The city passed its measure allowing noncitizen voting in 2021, allowing green-card holders and individuals with work permits who have lived in the city for at least a month to vote in municipal elections. New York City isn’t the first governmental body that has passed such a law, with the District of Columbia and Burlington, Vermont, passing similar measures in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
But the Republican National Committee, the New York Republican State Committee, and a group of voters and elected officials in 2022 challenged the statute. Two lower courts struck it down, finding that the law violated the state constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law, which requires a referendum to make certain changes to the structure of government.
New York’s state constitution specifies that “every citizen shall be entitled to vote,” and Republicans say that definition can’t be extended to include noncitizens as well.
“State citizenship is a U.S. citizen who resides in a particular state, and it’s a subset,” Michael Hawrylchak, an attorney for the Republicans, said during oral arguments. “It would not permit New York to allow noncitizens to vote.”
But the city argued it has the right to decide how it chooses to operate its elections and, in this case, granting noncitizens the right to vote.
“Each local government has the power to make that choice,” Assistant Corporation Counsel Claude Platton, representing the city, said. “New York City has made it. Others don’t need to.”
But Justice Michael Garcia asked if allowing this statute would give local governments too much reach in deciding who could or who could not vote in elections, including noncitizens who don’t meet the qualifications currently outlined in the statute.
“Would there be any limit on how, in any individual municipality, could define who could vote?” Garcia asked.
Platton said that question does not need to be decided now.
“We’re not talking about the wisdom of the choices that legislative local governments might make in a particular case,” Platton said.
But despite arguments from Republicans that the Municipal Home Rule Law requires a referendum to change election methods, Platton says that only applies when there’s a change in the method of electing a local officer.
“Why is this not a method?” Justice Jenny Rivera asked. “Strikes me there’s a lot of process going on there.”
Rivera added that it seems the law would surely change election ballots, how the city counts votes, and the voter registration process itself.
But Platton says the law doesn’t change anything about the election process itself, only extending opportunity to individuals who couldn’t previously vote.
Hawrylchak disagreed, adding that changing who can vote fundamentally changes the election process.
“If you change the electorate, the people who are actually able to cast the votes to a differently constituted electorate, you’ve changed the method,” Hawrylchak said.
This case before New York’s highest court represents the latest fight over immigrants’ right to vote, which President Donald Trump fiercely railed against during his campaign for the presidency. Trump and other Republicans touted unsubstantiated claims that noncitizens were illegally voting in large numbers, and eight states passed measures banning noncitizen voting.
COURTHOUSENEWS