A court has overruled a New York City Council vote taken in December 2021, which would allow non U.S. citizens the right to a path to vote in municipal elections in New York City. As reported in April, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, community partners, and pro-bono counsel, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, collectively filed a motion to challenge a lawsuit which sought to reverse the recently approved municipal voting rights bill in New York City, which extended the right to vote to eligible non-citizens in municipal elections.

 

In the case of Fosella v. Adams, a group of Republican voters and elected officials sued The City of New York, in order to reverse the municipal voting rights bill which, at the time, was unsigned by the mayor but approved by the City Council, allowing New Yorkers who are legal, permanent residents or who are authorized to work in the United States, a path to vote in municipal elections. The lawsuit, brought by Republican voters and others, asked the NY Supreme Court on Staten Island to block the passage of the bill into law, and prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote in such municipal elections.

 

The news serves as a further blow to New Yorkers, many of whom were already appalled by last week’s decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to strike down a New York gun-control law that required individuals to show “proper cause” to get a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home, as well as the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, legislation which protected the right to choose to have an abortion.

 

New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams reacted to the news on Monday, June 27, saying, “Months ago, after years of it being denied, New York City restored the right to vote in municipal elections, regardless of immigration status, with legislation I was proud to co-sponsor, an essential step towards building a true democracy in our city.”

 

He added, “Today, the State Supreme Court seeks to, once again, revoke that right and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of permanent New York City residents from having a voice in the decisions that shape our city – and choosing the leaders who make those decisions. Federal citizenship should not be a prerequisite to participate in local democracy – as recently as 2002, noncitizens voted in school board elections. In a city like New York, this court ruling will silence the people and communities that are often most impacted by the decisions of those in power.”

 

Williams continued, “Days after the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act was signed in New York State, in opposition to a rising tide of voter disenfranchisement across the country, the court’s ruling undercuts that mission and belies New York’s role as a supposed progressive beacon – it must be immediately appealed. New York is a city of immigrants, and to advance our city, we must advance our vote.”

 

Intro 1867, dubbed the “Our City, Our Vote” bill, approved by the City Council in December 2021, aimed to give over 800,000 eligible, noncitizen New Yorkers the right to vote in city elections, making it the most significant voter expansion initiative in the City’s democracy in over a century. The law did not extend to State or federal elections.

 

Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson responded to the court ruling, saying, “Today`s ruling by the New York State Supreme Court is beyond disappointing. Last year, elected officials and advocates rallied together to support municipal voting rights for immigrant New Yorkers who have too often been excluded from the electoral process despite their overwhelming contributions to our city.”

She added, “Every New Yorker deserves to have a say in who represents them and at a time when we are seeing a fundamental attack on our democracy by a conservative Supreme Court, we cannot further disfranchise our most vulnerable residents.”

 

Earlier this month, The Legal Aid Society released a statement celebrating a separate vote by the SCOTUS to dismiss an appeal from several conservative states to intervene to defend the Trump-era “Public Charge” rule that the Biden Administration has abandoned.

 

As reported, according to the Milbank Memorial Fund, which identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, one of the Trump administration’s most dramatic efforts to restructure long-established social welfare policy was the public charge rule, issued in 2019 in the face of massive opposition.

 

It fundamentally altered the standard used to determine whether legal immigrants who apply for permanent residency would be allowed to stay as “green card” holders, or instead, be considered public charges, vulnerable to deportation. “Certain legal immigrants, such as refugees, are exempt from the public charge test but many others are not and must effectively prove their community worth in order to become permanent residents,” a statement on the fund’s website reads.

 

The Legal Aid Society officials said on June 15, “The Biden Administration has made it clear that the government should not weaponize government benefits and services against immigrants, and has rightfully abandoned the Trump-era ‘public change’ rule that did just that. Efforts by conservative states to defend the rule are ill-considered, and we are glad to see SCOTUS dismiss the appeal.” 

 

The statement continued, “This marks an opportunity to reiterate that Trump’s ‘public charge’ rule has not been in effect since March 2021, and that immigrant families can continue to secure health care, including COVID-19 vaccination, food assistance, and housing assistance for which they are eligible without the fear that they will lose the chance to obtain lawful permanent residence.”