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.
The NY city council’s decision to allow non-citizens to vote is the first volley towards eliminating citizenship, boundaries and nationalism altogether. This act is a direct hit on conservative nationalism, a movement that is gaining strength the more Democrats push their “open borders” globalist agenda. Allowing non-citizens to vote will not end in NY or Democratic states, and will not be confined to local elections. Eventually, it will erode the very concept of the “nation.”
Good Lord, it’s like the 857th volley. Where have you been?
All people are sinners. They can be stopped from sinning by nuking them all.
I doubt that these non-citizens won’t “accidentally” vote in Federal elections.
And the answer is……………………..yes, but only under specific conditions may a non-citizen resident of Denmark vote in local elections. Well Bernie, it’s looking like Denmark has it all over the USA.
Let’s check out how they do things in Senator Sanders go-to country – Denmark. If I were a ‘permanent’ resident of Copenhagen, would I be permitted to vote in local elections? I don’t know yet – I’m going to LIU
In many ( most ? ) states there may be provisions for non-citizens to vote in certain state and local elections but this would probably create more confusion than may be warranted ( depending upon state and local laws ). Does it make sense ? I’d love to hear an honest debate on the subject.
In many ( most ? ) states there may be provisions for non-citizens to vote in certain state and local elections
Start with the fact, there are ONLY State and local elections. That’s why the Constitution specifically recognizes The States power to run elections. The Constitution only addresses the date, leaving times, places and all other determinations under state control
According to this map, Christianity was well-established long before Islam was even a thing. It was there first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#/media/File:Spread_of_Christianity_to_AD_600_(1).png
I thought Citizenship was part of being an American….and that Citizens vote….not Aliens particularly Illegal Aliens.
The Radical Left Wing Social Justice DEMS don’t care about laws, Constitution and etc. They want as many ILLEGAL Votes so they can stuff the ballot box. They are afraid of the US CITIZEN. They prefer/want a one party system and a welfare state. They are CORRUPT. 2022 is going to be a major Blow to the DEM’s. Voters don’t want their radical, social justice corrupt policies and welfare authoritarian state/policies.
Then there is the Supremacy Clause.
A major defect amongst conservatives, including the conservatives sitting on this U.S. Supreme Court is some conservatives wrongfully believe that states’ rights trump’s a person’s U.S. Const. rights.
The U.S. Const. specifically holds that a person’s U.S. Const. rights trumps “states’ rights.”
A state cannot constitutionally pass a state law which prohibits or even inhibits a person’s U.S. Const. rights, period.
Racist confederates went to war trying to protect “states’ rights” including the Southern states’ rights to slavery.
In the year 2021 America still suffers anti-Union sympathizers who foolishly support states’ rights over an individual’s U.S. Const. rights.
Conservatives are confused over the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Const. which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The 10th Amendment does not authorize states to enact laws or even practices that violate a person’s exercise of a U.S. Constitutional right.
These are hardboiled legal facts mesmerizing many conservative legislators who mistakenly believe they enjoy a state right to pass state laws prohibiting the free exercise of a person’s U.S. Const. rights.
Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in U.S. elections; conversely, non-citizens may stake a U.S. Const. claim to vote in a non-federal election based on a person’s U.S. Const. right to equality.
Further, many conservatives speak as if they never heard of the Supremacy Clause – Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution which establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
You do realize the War Between the States was fought to preserve the Union? And, that the seceding states were effectively rescinding their ratification of the Constitution?
“Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in U.S. elections”
So then why are you complaining about conservatives when liberal cities are the ones ignoring the Constitution?
So by your logic states may not pass gun control laws? States can’t prohibit the religious to gather to worship during a pandemic? States can’t limit political opposition’s right to protest by denying permits or declaring a gathering to be illegal?
States can pass state laws which do not violate federal law or the free exercise of a person’s U.S. Constitutional rights.
Like the RIGHT to bear arms??
As long as you’re a member of a well regulated militia.
Wally, if you can read I suggest you read the Heller case, even if it is not written at a third grade level.
YoFederal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in U.S. elections; conversely, non-citizens may stake a U.S. Const. claim to vote in a non-federal election based on a person’s U.S. Const. right to equality.
There is no Constitutional right to equality.
So I guess NYC cannot ban weapons due to the 2nd A??? I guess an illegal here for one week can go get a gun in your brave new world??
Humans are cruel, unfair, stupid, unscrupulous, evil, and villainous. I don’t care what happens to the human race anymore. If an asteroid strikes the Earth, or
if there is a nuclear holocaust, I couldn’t care less. It’s what they deserve for being the way that they are, doing the things that they do.
IIRC, non-citizens have had the right in the past to vote locally. Nothing really new with that thought. Seems like the NY state provisions could reasonably be interpreted to preclude that.
But let’s be honest – this is nothing more than an attempted power grab to solidify NY as a one party state. Any other so-called reasoning is just noise
Why let the patients run the asylum? Why let crazy people have the power to pass crazy laws?
So, a non-citizen is insane, but becomes “sane” when they become a citizen?
The foreigners can vote for mayor but not governor?
It’s a ridiculous, stupid and hopefully illegal move from a bunch of lame ducks.
Clearly non-citizens are federally prohibited from voting in U.S. elections.
BUTTTTT, there’s nothing in the U.S. Const. or federal law that prohibits who can or cannot vote in non-federal elections.
A better question is, why the concern and worry about non-citizens voting in non-federal elections?
Are you afraid of non-citizens voting in non-federal elections?
Are you afraid of non-citizens voting in school board elections?
Are you afraid of non-citizens voting in talent shows, straw polls, etc?
Apparently someone is worried about non-citizen voting in non-federal elections.
Why would one be worried that non-citizens can vote in non-federal elections?
On what federal basis should non-citizens be denied voting in non-federal elections?
I contend there is no federal basis to prohibit non-citizens from voting in non-federal elections.
If anything, a non-citizen may stake a state or federal claim against actors or entities prohibiting non-citizens from voting in non-federal elections.
The term “non-citizen” does not mean what many conservatives thinks it means.
A “non-citizen” standing on U.S. soil is a “person” under the U.S. Constitution and as such, enjoys Const. protections; including the right to vote in non-federal elections – just like any other “person” who votes in non-federal elections.
You live in America where all persons on U.S. soil enjoy U.S. Const. protections. There are no “half-persons” in America.
If you want to treat non-citizens as “half-persons” then you will need to catch the first flight out of the U.S. to find a place where their government and people treat human beings they don’t like as “half-persons.”
I’m sure that Jonathan Turley can explain this to conservatives better than I can explain it to you.
Clearly non-citizens are federally prohibited from voting in U.S. elections.
There is no such thing as a federal election
Same stupid trool, different name. I got sucked in too.
Stupid troll stuff, that other stupid leftist will think are meaningful
“ A “non-citizen” standing on U.S. soil is a “person” under the U.S. Constitution and as such, enjoys Const. protections; including the right to vote in non-federal elections – just like any other “person” who votes in non-federal elections.”
Now that’s an excellent point.
…enjoys Const. protections;….
Like buying a gun?
Being a “person” under the Constitution does not entitle non-citizens to rights and privileges explicitly reserved to citizens by law. Nor should they be receiving benefits funded by taxpayers if they are not here legally, or in some legitimate protected status.
“ Being a “person” under the Constitution does not entitle non-citizens to rights and privileges explicitly reserved to citizens by law.”
Actually a non-citizen has the same right to freedom of speech, religious liberty, seek redress, and due process.
The only thing that is exclusive is voting in state or national elections. The U.S. constitution specifies an election for state representative or president is a citizen only function. There’s nothing about municipal or local issue elections. Unless a state specifically prohibits it.
Non-lawyer garbage talk. You are categorically incorrect on both your false claims. It’s pathetic how uneducated conservatives wish there was such a thing as a “half-person class” they can exclude and discriminate against. Conservatives cannot constitutionally deny non-citizens U.S. Constitutional rights. Says who? Over 200 years of federal case law and Supreme Court rulings.
BREAKING NEWS: THERE ARE NO HALF-PERSONS IN AMERICA.
Perhaps you should pursue your desire to discriminate against people you don’t like in a different country that enjoys discriminating against persons they don’t like.
Monumentcolorado,
Wow, such hateful and ignorance. I agree with anonymous that ronharold did have a valid point.
A non-citizen is still a person and there really is no prohibition on states allowing them to vote only on local elections such as school boards or local issues. They do pay taxes just like everyone else and as the saying goes no taxation without representation, right?
There does seem to be a valid reason to allow non-citizens to vote in localized elections where they pay taxes such as state or municipal. The law can be narrow and tailored to specific elections. Nothing in the constitution or state constitutions prohibits that approach as Turley noted.
What part of illegal don’t you understand? If you are not a citizen and are here illegally, no vote for you.
Jim22,
“ What part of illegal don’t you understand? If you are not a citizen and are here illegally, no vote for you.”
A non-citizen as being discussed here is referring to legal immigrants expats, or foreign nationals with permanent residency in the U.S. not illegal aliens.
A better question is, why the concern and worry about non-citizens voting in non-federal elections?
Because they will vote to take things from the citizens. How stupid are you?
Why does Professor Turley refer to this measure as a law? Nothing was passed by the state legislature. This is a measure passed by the NY City Council. According to Professor Turley, the Election Law prevails unless it is in conflict with any other “law”. How is this a “law”?
Law; the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
A city can pass an ordinance. An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. … Ordinances constitute the subject matter of municipal law. The power of municipal governments to enact ordinances is derived from the state constitution or statutes or through the legislative grant of a municipal charter.
That should clear it up for you.
It doesn’t. It depends on how “law” is defined or has been interpreted under the Election Law.
A municipal ordinance is a law. Municipal elections are governed by municipal laws as allowed by state law or state constitutions.
Law; the system of rules which a particular country or COMMUNITY recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
No, the other guy is right. You’re begging the question. What you said is an argument that might or might not prevail in the context of New York law.
Perhaps the possible results should be pondered…Imagine New York City under Sharia Law…some really weird people do get elected there.
The real issue is the dilution of citizen votes.
Every non-citizen who votes dilutes the vote of Americans.
An act of political expediency that shows contempt for both the constitution and for Americans.
Dems are showing their true colors.
They are indeed. If precedent is set, do not expect this to stay confined to state elections. IMHO, paying taxes is not a qualifier as that is expected if each adult person anyway as a matter of course. I have no words left for the modern dem party, and NY is swirling the toilet. They are radicals in every sense of word but the good definition; rather than give us something bold and innovative they are retreading the corruption and lawlessness of decades and even centuries past, dragging us all backward with them.
‘Regressive Democrat’ is spot on. Never voting dem again. I guess they’ll just replace me with someone from Nigeria or Cuba.
“ Dems are showing their true colors.”
Showing their true colors to you just now????? Tell me your joking. I have been seeing their true colors for a good 30 to 40 years and other people like me would say the same thing. They have been nothing but pure manipulative, sorry as- pieces of pure lying conning—con—job -scum all this time.
During this entire time they have showed their content for traditional American values. For traditional marriage values. For their hatred towards God, towards the Bible, towards Christians. Towards the white race. Towards all things wholesome. I can keep listening things, but hopefully, you get the picture.
Monumentcolorado, there is no dilution of votes if non-citizens are allowed to vote in city or municipal elections. They pay taxes just like everybody else. They are already part of the community they support. At the local level they should have some say in what their communities want. It’s entirely up to the state or city council if their state constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit it.
You obviously don’t know what “dilution means”. Of course, there’s a dilution of the citizen’s votes. Whether they pay taxes is irrelevant to the question of dilution. If you want to make the other argument, that’s okay, but you undermine it with your idiocy about dilution.
Monumentcolorado, here’s an interesting question. If non-citizens are allowed to vote in local or city elections. Would they also be allowed to register as Republican or Democrat?
Nothing says you have to be a party member to vote in any election. Nothing prevents local or city leaders from tailoring the law narrowly to accomplish their idea of letting non-citizens to vote in city elections.
They could register into an entirely separate registration system specifically for non-citizens. That would make sure they only get to vote in local or city elections. It’s entirely plausible.
So, if I live in a city and I’m not a citizen, I “legally” can’t have a say in how the city is run, who is elected?
I have no idea why you would imagine there is anything wrong with that.
No Wally, you can’t!