New York City Grants Voting Rights to Non-Citizens

December 10th in International Human Rights Day. [And, my mom's birthday, though the two are not related, really.]

Democracy is an important part of human rights. The world is an ever changing stream of people and citizenship alone is a questionable limit on voting. It already is not a limit for First Amendment rights overall, for which voting might be argued to be one (particularly, the right to petition). 

(The Supreme Court referenced "the relation between voting and political expression" in a poll tax case in the 1960s, but rested on equal protection.  And, once the right to vote is granted, that does have a potential power to make it broad indeed.  

But, as of now, a freestanding constitutional right to vote has not been recognized.  It is a special "fundamental right" for which more care in given all the same.  I would argue there very well might be a constitutional right to vote, at least for citizens.  Nonetheless, a clear constitutional right to vote would perhaps be a good idea.)  

I earlier referenced pending vote -- now final -- of the City Council of New York to allow non-citizens to vote. This used to be a common practice until the early part of the 20th Century, but now only is allowed elsewhere in a limited number of small cities and such. We just had an election, so the next available one is 2023, unless there is some special election.

The measure applies to local elections, but is sizable scope. About one million adult noncitizens live in New York City, twenty percent of the current registered voters, though it remains to be seen how many are eligible. To register, noncitizens must have lived here (documented) for 30 days, the same requirement for citizens, and have at least a work permit.

(There was some concern the new electorate would change political power, including black representatives, but who are the primary immigrants in the city? I would suppose people from the West Indies and Latin America, which includes a range of black people, though the fraction of Latinx voters can be important. But, if they are a sizable part of the community, why shouldn't they have a role in picking their leaders?)

Some might be upset at the 30 days, and since non-citizens do not have a constitutional right to vote, the requirement could be tougher. Who cares though? I don't see a somewhat stricter test there as too important though would not really be bothered if it was in place. 

One can reasonably argue that more than thirty days is necessary to be part of the electorate in this fashion. Again, how does one draw lines there? And, it is not like we have an election every month or so. Here, the next scheduled election is 2023. We have basically two a year (primary/general) when local elections occur.

The discussion here, by the author of a biography of the guy, of a key framer of the Fourteenth Amendment underlines the limited usefulness of relying on a few people to obtain original understanding of constitutional provisions. The whole practice is of limited value generally in applying the Constitution today because best practices is not to rely on that.

A normal practice is to speak of general principles behind a constitutional provision. This is okay as piece of the puzzle. But, we see here a key framer having views on citizenship -- a basic thing -- that were rejected. The discussion underlines the importance of looking at all the information as a whole. With a grain of salt at that.

Yes, it is noted that (perhaps realizing he lost), his views didn't return during the 14A and 15A debate process. But, Bingham's views a few years before is still notable. Text alone cannot settle questions and many of the debate materials we now use were not even available in the beginning [such as Madison's notes].

So, what was "in the air" beforehand mattered here. And, it is not like Bingham is a sole figure here. James Madison has various views -- including involving the Establishment Clause -- that are not the median position at the time.

Anyway, from what I can tell, the measure is allowed under New York state law. As the article notes, there was non-citizen voting for years, from time to time, including until this century for school board elections.

My own councilman, the person who resigned his state assembly position (non-term limited) to take a more profitable local position (though his primary challenger last time won this time, he finding the electorate too liberal to be worth trying this time) fear-mongered some.

"Bronx Democrat Mark Gjonaj asked colleagues to delay the bill, saying it could make the city’s elections vulnerable to nefarious foreign threats or people who are “transient.”  Such an asshole.

A few Democrats were wary of the measure, including as noted above the possible change of political power it might bring. This suggests why a City Council with five Republicans (back in the day, there was one) voted on the measure 33 to 14 with two abstentions.  The anti-immigrant voices, in a city of immigrants, are offensive.

The matter will likely be subject to litigation, but again, there is time before the next local elections covered [it doesn't sound like judicial races are covered].

There are so many continuing struggles with democracy in this country, including Republicans continuing to put roadblocks in various states. So, it is very important to support the measures that are in the works that does advance the cause. 

As we continue to worry about democracy in the nation as a whole, including the sanctity of upcoming federal elections up to and including the presidency. 

===

An important development in the 2022 elections occurred as well. Tish James, the New York Attorney General and major supposed primary opponent of the current governor, suspended her race for governor. Things were not going well, the more liberal minded potential candidate probably particularly having problems gaining upstate support.  

Attorney General James will now run for re-election, leaving lesser lights to provide a challenge (including to her left) to Governor Hochul.  Gov. Hochul might have appointed another former prosecutor to the Court of Appeals (if a black woman), but as a whole, she already seems much better than Andrew Cuomo.  

I still probably would be inclined to vote for Tish James.  Less so someone else, though I as a rule favor the left leaning primary option.  This being a state office, the new NYC law is not involved.