NYC Non-Citizens Voting Law Struck Down

New York City passed a law in December 2021 allowing non-citizens to vote. I talked more about the general issue after D.C. passed a similar law. 

(My then outgoing council representative, a Democrat, scare tacticked allowing noncitizens to vote. Mayor Adams was wary but let it be. So much time has passed that we are on a third local rep, this time a Republican, which just still seems wrong.) 

Voting and citizenship go together like a horse and carriage, to quote the theme song of Married ... with Children. I do not say that ironically in this context. 

Many states over our history -- until at least the 1920s -- allowed at least some noncitizens to vote. Current federal law bans voting in federal elections. Only a few localities allow them to vote in local elections. 

Some Republicans, generally the sorts who don't like voting rights, challenged the law on state constitutional grounds. New York City Council members include lawyers and they did their due diligence, I suppose, before passing the law.  

Looking at the law, it seemed to me to be valid. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court, disagreed 6-1. They are in charge. I still think the dissent has the best argument. Shrugs. 

Local Law 11 would vastly expand the franchise in New York City, a locality that is home to approximately 3.1 million immigrants, of whom 27 percent (over 800,000) are lawful permanent residents or hold another form of lawful status.[FN15] It provides a means for this significant part of the City's population to have a voice in their government.

The state constitution says that citizens have the right to vote. This does not necessarily mean that is the ceiling. It very well might be the floor. The discretion given to localities over a choice of self-government also warrants the text to be interpreted liberally. 

The fear of noncitizens voting is exaggerated, both as to some significant number doing so illegally or doing so anyway. The law does not apply to so-called "illegals," who are here without legal authorization. 

A large segment of our city is disenfranchised regarding those who govern them. It is appropriate to allow them to vote. I think the state constitution probably can be reasonably interpreted to allow it.

A specter is given in some localities allowing 13-year-olds to vote. The raising of slippery slope arguments generally has problems no matter who does it. Yes, only up to a point. Nonetheless, I hold to that.

Why would a locality do that? I can very well see a locality giving sixteen and seventeen-year-olds the right to vote in certain elections. I think the line at 18 makes sense. But, a lower line is not absurd.  

Any line under that age is unlikely. I will give you a possibility. Maybe, a locality will let students vote in a school election, perhaps for a student representative on a school board. Or, some limited proposal, silly (local bird) or more serious (school uniforms?) might warrant giving under-18s the right to vote. 

A locality might perhaps give those under 18 the right to vote in a limited fashion to prepare them for voting completely as an adult. You can formulate various scenarios as to why it is rational for minors to vote. 

I find this result unfortunate.