Judge strikes down NYC immigrant voting law
/
City Councilmember Shekar Krishnan joined a number of advocates on Monday in front of City Hall to rally against a decision from a Richmond County Supreme Court justice to strike down a city law granting non-citizen New Yorkers the right to vote. Photo via Krishnan/Twitter
By Jacob Kaye
A Staten Island judge ruled Monday that a recently passed New York City law to expand the franchise by hundreds of thousands of people is unconstitutional.
Richmond County State Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio sided with several Republican electeds and voters who brought the case against the city, claiming that a law that gives non-citizen, lawful residents in New York City the right to vote in municipal elections violates the state’s constitution.
Porzio, who has previously ruled against the city’s mask mandate for young children, said in his ruling that though the law would grant rights to anywhere from 800,000 to one million New Yorkers, it would come at the expense of others, an argument made by the plaintiffs who were led by Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella.
“[T]he weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns,” Porzio wrote in his decision.
“Though the plaintiffs have not suffered any harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent, and it is reasonably certain that they will suffer their claimed harm if the proposed municipal voters are entitled to vote,” he added.
Though the bill passed the City Council in December 2021 and was signed into law by Mayor Eric Adams in January, the law was not to go into effect until the 2023 election cycle.
At the center of Porzio’s ruling was his opinion that the state constitution only allows for “citizens” to vote.
“The New York State Constitution expressly states that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections,” he said. “There is no statutory ability for the City of New York to issue inconsistent laws permitting on-citizens to vote and exceed the authority granted to it by the New York State Constitution.”
“Though voting is a right that so many citizens take for granted, the City of New York cannot ‘obviate’ the restrictions imposed by the Constitution,” he added.
Several Queens electeds joined in as plaintiffs on the suit, including Republican Councilmembers Joann Ariola and Vickie Paladino, as well as Democratic Councilmember Robert Holden, who often votes and sides with the Republican members of the legislative body.
“The NYS Supreme Court has rightly ruled non-Citizen voting as unconstitutional,” Ariola told the Eagle in a statement. “Voting is the right of American Citizens.”
“We need to work harder to incentivize and help more immigrants become citizens and untangle the bureaucracy that makes the process long and arduous,” Ariola added.
A spokesperson for the city’s Law Department said that the city was potentially exploring the option to appeal Porzio’s decision.
“This is a disappointing court ruling for people who value bringing in thousands more New Yorkers into the democratic process,” the spokesperson said. “ We are evaluating next steps.”
The non-citizen voting law, known as Local Law 11, was the biggest piece of voting reform legislation passed on the city level since the start of ranked-choice voting last year.
The law allows for noncitizen, lawful permanent residents and those with legal work permits to vote in municipal elections, including in mayoral, comptroller, City Council and borough president races, as long as they have been living in the five boroughs for the past 30 days.
The law, which was first introduced by then-Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez, was dramatically passed by the council in the final days of its legislative session in December 2021. Though it passed with a supermajority – 33 members voting in favor, 14 against and two abstaining – the debate over the bill was one of the liveliest seen in the legislative body all session.
Councilmember Adrienne Adams, prior to her ascension to the council’s speaker, celebrated the passage of the law that had been knocking around the chamber in various configurations for over a decade.
In a joint statement issued Monday, Speaker Adams and the Immigration Committee Chair Shahana Hanif decried the decision.
“The Council passed Local Law 11 to enfranchise nearly one million voters, many Black and brown New Yorkers, who live here, pay taxes, and contribute to our city,” the lawmakers said. “By providing city residents with a voice in their local government representation, we provide them with an equal stake in the long-term success of our city.”
“Now more than ever, when our rights are being threatened, we need more civic and community engagement, not less,” the added. “We are reviewing the ruling and exploring options for moving forward.”
A large number of councilmembers who voted against the bill last year cited it’s 30-day provision, arguing that a person should be required to live within the five boroughs longer to get the right to vote in its municipal elections. Among those members was Selvena Brooks-Powers, who voted against the legislation after she said a number of her constituents urged her to do so. Brooks-Powers now serves as the council’s majority whip.
“This is a bill I felt very deeply about and, quite frankly, I feel robbed, as well,” Brooks-Powers said from the council floor in December.
That concern was echoed by Mayor Eric Adams. Though he eventually signed it into law, the mayor briefly threatened not to as a result of the 30-day provision.
But the bulk of legislators voting against the bill said they did so because they believed it violated the state’s constitution, an argument that was supported by Porzio on Monday.
Rodriguez, the law’s biggest supporter in the council and the now-commissioner of the Department of Transportation, told his former colleagues that the bill would pass any sort of legal test after being reviewed by council attorneys in the lead-up to the bill’s passage.
“If we need to go to Albany, we go to Albany together,” Rodriguez said in November. “We also have right-wing opponents in the City of New York who always become an obstacle when we want to move the immigrants’ rights agenda in this city.”
Advocates say the law is necessary to allow for the tax-paying residents it applies to – who often have to wait years to obtain permanent citizenship – to have a say in where their tax dollars go.
“As a first generation immigrant, I came here when I was eight years old, and even when I was running for office last year, you know how many people asked me why my voting record does not show a long enough history for me to be running for office?” Queens City Councilmember Julie Won said at a rally in support of the law on Monday. “Well, you know what? If it didn’t take so damn long for people to become citizens, I would have had a longer voting history.”
“[This decision] is a great disappointment,” she added. “I'm hoping that I can trust the Court of Appeals to do the right thing.”
Cesar Ruiz, an attorney with LatinoJustice, called the decision a “somber moment.”
This represents a huge step back for our democracy and is a blatant contravention of the will of the people,” Ruiz said. “It cannot and will not be accepted.”
Queens City Councilmember Shekar Krishnan, who represents a large immigrant population in Jackson Heights, called the decision a “direct attack” on his constituents.
“Close to one million New Yorkers will be disenfranchised – are disenfranchised – because of this decision,” he said. “New Yorkers who have carried the city forward, our essential workers across this city, and now to hear from a court that their voices will be ignored [and] that they’ll have no say in the democratic process over decisions that will directly affect them every single day…This is fundamentally unjust.”
The city has a month to file an appeal of the decision.
