New York's top court blocks NYC from letting noncitizens vote
New York state's top court put an end Thursday to New York City's effort to empower noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
In a 6-1 ruling, the high court said 'the New York constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.'
New York City never actually implemented its 2022 law. Supporters estimated it would have applied to about 800,000 noncitizens with legal permanent U.S. residency or authorization to work in the nation. The measure would have let them cast a ballot for mayor, city council and other local offices, but not for president, Congress or state officials.
State Republican officials quickly sued over the law, and state courts at every level rejected it.
Republicans hailed Thursday's ruling from the state's highest court, called the Court of Appeals.
'Efforts by radical Democrats on the New York City Council to permit noncitizen voting have been rightly rejected,' NYGOP Chair Ed Cox said in a statement. The Republicans' attorney, Michael Hawrylchak, said they were pleased that the court recognized the state constitution's 'fundamental limits' on voter eligibility.
The heavily Democratic City Council passed the law, and its leaders took the case to the high court. Speaker Adrienne Adams said she was disappointed in the outcome but respected the court.
'The council sought to strengthen our city's 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,' she said in a statement.
Democratic Mayor Eric Adams had neither vetoed nor signed the measure but allowed it to become law without his signature. An Adams spokesperson, Kayla Mamelak Altus, said the administration respects the court's decision.
A handful of Maryland and Vermont towns let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections, and noncitizen residents of Washington, D.C., can vote in city races. San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to participate in school board elections.
Farther south in California, residents of Santa Ana rejected a noncitizen voting measure last year. Some other states specifically prohibit localities from enfranchising noncitizens.
In New York, the state constitution says 'every citizen shall be entitled to vote' if at least 18 years old and a state resident. The document adds that county and municipal election voters must live in the relevant county, city or village.
New York City argued that 'every citizen' doesn't mean 'citizens only,' and that the city had a self-governance right to choose to expand the franchise for its own elections. The law's supporters said it gave an electoral voice to many people who have made a home in the city and pay taxes to it but face tough paths to citizenship.
The GOP accused Democrats of violating the state constitution in order to make partisan gains.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
23 minutes ago
Michigan House Republicans sue the secretary of state over election training materials
KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Michigan Republicans are suing the battleground state's top elections executive over access to election training materials. The lawsuit filed Thursday is the latest escalation in a brewing dispute that began when the GOP took majority control of the state's House of Representatives last year. Since winning control of the chamber in the 2024 election, statehouse Republicans have repeatedly scrutinized the state's election processes and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026. The conflict comes as some state Republicans echo past false claims of election fraud in Michigan, which was a prime target of President Donald Trump and his backers after his 2020 election loss. Republicans on the chamber's Oversight Committee subpoenaed Benson in April, seeking access to training materials for local clerks and staff who administer elections, including access to the Bureau of Elections' online learning portal. Benson's office released some requested materials in response to the subpoena, but not all, citing cybersecurity and physical security concerns related to administering elections and the voting process. The office has said it needs to review the online portal for 'sensitive information" and make redactions. 'Since the beginning of this saga, Secretary Benson has asked lawmakers to let a court review their request for sensitive election information that, in the wrong hands, would compromise the security of our election machines, ballots and officials,' Michigan Department of State spokesperson Cheri Hardmon said in a statement Thursday. House Republicans say the goal of reviewing the material is to ensure clerks are trained in accordance with Michigan law. The House voted along party lines in May to hold Benson in contempt for not completely complying with the subpoena. The request for training materials originally came from GOP state Rep. Rachelle Smit, who has pushed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Smit is the chair of the House elections committee, which was renamed to the Elections Integrity Committee with the new Republican majority. 'Secretary Benson has proven she is unwilling to comply with our subpoena and Michigan law,' Rep. Smit said in a statement Thursday. 'She's skirted the rules and done whatever she could to avoid public scrutiny. It's become overwhelmingly clear that she will never release the training materials we're looking for without direction from a court." The lawsuit asks the Michigan Court of Claims to intervene and compel Benson to comply with the subpoena. 'The public interest is best served if the constitutional order of the State of Michigan is preserved and the Legislature can properly perform its duty to regulate the manner of elections in the state and, if deemed necessary, enact election laws for the benefit of Michigan residents,' the lawsuit says. Benson gained national attention for defending the results of the 2020 election in the face of Trump's attempts to undercut the outcome nationwide and in Michigan. Multiple audits — including one conducted by the then-Republican-controlled Michigan Senate — concluded former President Joe Biden won the state in 2020 and that there was no widespread or systemic fraud. Benson has remained a subject of GOP scrutiny this year. A Republican state representative introduced three articles of impeachment against Benson on Tuesday, and several of the accusations continue to cast doubts on the results of the 2020 election. With Democrats in control of the state Senate, it's unlikely the impeachment articles will result in a conviction.
31 minutes ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court ruling on reverse discrimination a no-brainer: Chuck Rocha
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected legal precedent that people in a majority group have a higher standard for proving discrimination. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha agrees with the high court decision. 'Discrimination doesn't say, 'Oh, you have to be black,' or, 'You have to be a woman,' or, 'You have to be gay.' … Discrimination means you're treating me different,' he says on 'CUOMO.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
