Is New York's Voting Rights For Non-Citizens Legal?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This week, New York became the latest city to grant voting rights to non-residents - a move that could give voting rights to 800,000 non-citizens in city elections. There are roughly a dozen such cities granting voting rights across the country but there are major questions over the legality of this measure in New York.
The purpose of these laws is to enfranchise non-citizens who pay taxes and are part of these communities. The New York law only extends to permanent residents. Critics argue that it is part of a trend toward erasing the distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.
The law, however, faces a credible challenge in the absence of action from the state legislature in Albany.
The first stumbling block is the state constitution itself. N.Y. Const. art. II, § 1 provides that "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."
Proponents would have to establish that non-citizens can be treated as citizens "entitled to vote at every election." It is possible that a court could interpret the language broadly in a non-exclusionary way. Proponents note that noncitizens have previously voted in some New York city elections.
The second barrier is the New York state election law, which limits the franchise "in any election" to US citizens:
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.
However, there is a savings clause that says that if a conflict exists between state election law and "any other law," the latter prevails absent a specific prohibition in the election law. The New York City law could be argued as such "other law" that prevails in a conflict.
Finally, there is Section 23(2)(e) of New York's Municipal Home Rule Law, along with § 38 of New York City's charter, which provides that a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it "[a]bolishes an elective office, or changes the method of … electing … an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office." This is a measure coming from the City Council itself, not a referendum.
It is clear that the law will be challenged and there are credible claims to be made in court. Even Mayor de Blasio has expressed doubts over the legality of the law. What is clear is that various Democratic cities are moving to adopt similar laws, though much will depend on their state constitutions and laws. In New York, the Constitution raised a challenging interpretive task as does the Home Rule law. In the end, this would seem a matter for the state legislature to resolve. The addition of 800,000 votes in New York City alone is a major shift in the voting population. The resulting policy changes impact that whole state and obviously citizens travel and change residences between these cities. It is a matter that should be addressed by the whole state on the whether voting should remain a right exclusive to citizens.
Jonathan Turley
Tags
Who is online
492 visitors
800,000 votes should disenfranchise as many citizens.
This is what the democrats really want.
Replacement voters…..
I thought Democrats didn’t like foreign nationals influencing elections.
It's how to get around terrible poll numbers
Foreign nationals???????????????????
There are only 2 state constitutions that state the non-citizens may not vote. New York is not on of those 2.
And I think we all know that the US Constitution does not specifically mention it. I think one of the first things that Republicans, with what I believe will be super majorities in congress & a Republican President in 2024, must do is to pass a Constitutional Amendment making citizenship a requirement for voting, the abolishment of anchor baby citizenship and ballot harvesting and confining elections to a single election day.
Legislation on immigration reform should also be on the agenda.
That is a presumption that I never make.
Vic if this is what democrats really wanted, then why is DeBlasio against it?
Probably because he is going to run for Governor and that idea doesn't resonate out where American citizens live.
Vic,
American citizens live in NYC, too, so I don't agree with that assessment.
He will never win for gov either.
Apparently, foreigners don't necessarily know that. It's good you were able to explain it [removed]
Let's hope they don't become outnumbered by the non-citizens who are granted a right that should only be reserved for citizens.
We can only hope that we don't encourage the democratic sclerosis which is a loss of confidence in the integrity of voting - to the point that it becomes seen as a futile exercise rather than a bulwark of citizenship.
"Let's hope they don't become outnumbered by the non-citizens who are granted a right that should only be reserved for citizens."
It's we democrats/liberals/progressives who have lost confidence in the gop/republican/alleged conservatives - loss of integrity regarding voting.
It is already a futile exercise in some places in this nation...
That includes the rest of the world. Unfortunately the number of democracies are shrinking, rather than expanding.
Yep, they are already breaking up into blocks of nations...
I'm afraid that WWIII will be the US against the rest of the world...
Dangerous times ahead brother... The ideal of individual freedom is at serious risk...
The problem will be at home first.
Plato's great fear was that an always radicalizing democracy would eventually lead to chaos and then swing back to tyranny.
He might have been against it, but it looks like he is going to sign it:
"New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio briefly addressed his decision to sign a bill allowing noncitizens to vote in city elections despite having issues with it.
In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," de Blasio admitted that he is not 100% behind the concept of allowing noncitizens to vote, then immediately shifted to what he said is a more pressing concern: dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
This has been done in San Francisco for a few years now. Non-citizens voting is restricted to local political races like city counsel, school boards, and local referenda. They have to have a legal immigration status and they cannot vote for state or federal issues.
I think it's a good thing. Many of these people have been here for a long time. They are a part of the community, they pay taxes, and should have a voice in their schools and community leadership.
So why didn't they try to become citizens?
Couldn't say Vic. Everybody's story is different. Could be any number of reasons. Maybe they're just happy how things are. Maybe most of them won't even vote. I try not to lump everybody into the same mold.
And maybe they just wanted to work here. Voting would only be the required thanks to Joe Biden.
Probably some of them just wanted to work here. So what? Voting isn't required of anybody Vic. You know that.
And you know that entering the country illegally is a felony.
8 USC 1325 states civil penalties, what is the statute that makes it a felony?
Immigration and Nationality Act (2011)
TITLE II: IMMIGRATION
Part VIII General Penalty Provisions
Section § 275 (8 USC 1325) Improper entry by alien:
a. Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Why does anyone assume that everyone who immigrates to the USA did so illegally?
And did ANY "exceptional" Americans ever think that in many cases immigrants might not be permitted to retain dual citizenship, and would have to give up their birth citizenship which they might not want to do, and maybe have good reason for NOT giving it up.. .
Who assumes that? However those coming here illegally are coming in overwhelming numbers and we have 3 more years of it.
And did ANY "exceptional" Americans ever think that in many cases immigrants might not be permitted to retain dual citizenship, and would have to give up their birth citizenship which they might not want to do, and maybe have good reason for NOT giving it up.. .
Despite Obama's resentments, America is exceptional. What does dual citizenship have to do with people from the third world entering the country illegally? Are you claiming that is a motivation for all they do to get here? Even if it was, it would be meaningless.
"Crossing the border illegally can result in both criminal and civil charges. For criminal penalties, they may be subject to up to six months in jail and a fine for their first offense, and any subsequent offenses can reach two years in prison. Generally, a first time charge of improper entry, when assigned criminal charges, will likely only be a misdemeanor, dependent on a lack of aggravating factors. However, any offenses after that may result in a felony charge."
Nobody is advocating for anybody who is here illegally getting the right to vote.
Entering the country illegally is NOT a felony.
Immigration and Nationality Act (2011)
TITLE II: IMMIGRATION
Part VIII General Penalty Provisions
Section § 275 (8 USC 1325) Improper entry by alien:
a. Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
I think you better read this;
I agree with you VIc that immigrants entering the country illegally should not have the rights that legal immigrants should have. My comments about dual citizenship were meant only with respect to LEGAL immigrants.
Change of tune?
I am addressing GregTx on this. I have never intended nor said that ILLEGAL immigrants be given voting rights on municipal matters, and I have ALWAYS felt that established LEGAL resident non-citizens should be allowed to vote on municipal matters that affect them. My comment about "should never be allowed", for those who follow the meaning of my sentence, referred to what those who were shouting me down at the time were saying, not me. NO CHANGE OF TUNE.
Thank you for the clarification... {smile}
Exactly right. No reason why they shouldn't be able to vote on those issues. They've earned that right
By getting away with being here illegally long enough?
They have to be here legally in order to vote so unless they got amnesty from Ronald Reagan back in the 80s... No.
It's just a way to get them legally in the door so they can "accidentally" be allowed to vote in Federal and State Elections. If they're caught they'll say it was an oversight by an inexperienced poll worker.
They won't 'accidentally be allowed to vote that way'
No, it will be done quite deliberately.
Not deliberately either.
If you aren't a citizen then you don't get to vote. The right to vote is a right afforded to citizens IMO, no one else.
I can’t believe that you and I actually agree on something!
[Deleted]
[REMOVED,]
Non-Citizen Voting
The Federal constitution does not allow non-citizen to vote in Federal elections.
There is nothing in the federal constitution about voting on state or local elections.
I always find it interesting and irritating when people want a smaller federal government, but don't mind a monolithic government when it suits their needs.
LOL. You don't know how amused I am about this happening considering that a while ago I presented an argument as to why it made perfect sense and got shouted down by almost everybody here claiming that NEVER should a non-citizen be allowed to vote on anything, notwithstanding municipal issues being voted on would greatly affect the life and livelihood of a non-citizen of that municipality.
One Republican Senator has already done, what I'm asking for:
Sen. Rubio announces bill to withhold funding from cities that allow noncitizens to vote:
"Sen. Marco Rubio says he's ready to tighten the belt on government funding for cities with voting noncitizens.
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Friday that he will be introducing legislation to pull funds from any U.S. city that allows noncitizens to vote. The bill is a direct response to a Thursday decision from the New York City Council , who opened voting to their hundreds of thousands of residents without citizenship.
"No city which allows non-U.S. citizens to vote should receive U.S. government funds," Rubio said. "Next week I am going to file a bill to make that the law."
Federal Laws are for the country as a whole.
State Laws are for the individual states.
Local laws are for the Municipality.
If the local representatives wish to determine the people who can and cannot vote about local matters and unless they are specifically forbidden by the State to do so, then I see no problem with members of a community voting.
I can understand why people want to come here. However, immigrants should enter through due process by obtaining permission in some form (ex: a green card & the like). Simply entering the country without permission or in secret is akin to trespassing and those illegally entering should not be entitled to any federal protections, rights, wages, benefits, ect.. Penalties should also be severe. If the states followed a similar suit, that might help curtail illegal immigration.
I'm curious about something, although it really isn't important now, as it might have been in the past. My brother and I jointly owned a golf club condominium in Hallandale Florida for a number of years, which automatically gave us membership in the golf club the condos surrounded. We inherited it from our parents when they died. In a meeting of the condo corporation, would we have been denied the right to cast a vote because we were not citizens of the USA, but were there legally?
You were owners, and members of a private club, you know this and you already know the answer... [Deleted]