Allowing Non-Citizens To Vote
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
You would think that after the mini-civil war we had in the wake of the 2020 election, the winners would be content to leave well enough alone. Alas, that was not the case. New York City Democrats, as you know, have now changed the municipal code to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.
We might be led to wonder how many of those “night flights” that the Biden administration has been conducting from the Southern Border relocating those who have just crossed the Rio Grande might end up in the Big Apple. But, I digress.
The new law applies only to those who are legally in the United States who meet all other voting requirements, and have been a resident of the city for at least 30 days. Of course this begs whether the “night flight” travelers are considered to be here legally, but that question will have to wait for another day.
The law was passed by the city council last December 9, and was deemed approved on January 8 when neither the outgoing mayor, nor the new mayor vetoed it. According to my research, New York joins at least 15 other cities in the country that allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.
Not so fast, however. There are at least two lawsuits in state court to kill the New York law. Both cite legal and procedural grounds to block the law’s enforcement. One is from a group of Republican officeholders, including one Democrat, the Conservative Party of New York, the state and national Republican Parties, and at least four foreign-born naturalized citizens.
The other was filed on behalf of a group of black voters claiming the law, in addition to violating the state’s constitution and voting laws, also violates numerous civil rights laws designed to protect minority voting rights. In referring to the city council members who supported the law, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said:
“They explicitly used race as a factor of demarking the voter groups that they wanted to give this privilege to and that is a direct violation of the 15th Amendment.”
Blackwell’s group, an election integrity organization, Public Interest League Foundation, cited several statements made by the law’s sponsors that were flagged as racist reasons for the adoption of the bill. The Fifteenth Amendment, they argue, does not permit laws that might curb the rights of voters that is done for any racial purpose.
“[The law] violates the Fifteenth Amendment . . . because it was adopted with an impermissible racial intent; as well as the explicit intent of its sponsors to increase voting strength of racial subgroups while simultaneously decreasing the voting strength of other racial groups…[it was] enacted with the impermissible racial purpose of intentionally abridging the voting strength of black voters and other racial groups in New York City,” the suit alleged.
In support of its claim, the lawsuit offers statements by several of the council members to that exact point. Such as one by council member Ydanis Rodriguez, who, while debating the bill, switched to Spanish and stated the bill would increase the power of Hispanics and Asians; and who chastised white men who “fight to preserve their power.”
Other comments from members were also cited, such as that of Council President Laurie Cumbo who said, “This is going to be a great win for the ethnic groups that are going to be the highest number in the City of New York. . . . We’re all here to support our ethnic groups, and we’re all here to make sure that we all win. . . . I’m clear how the Dominican Republic community will benefit, but not the African-American community…”
The suit argues, citing numerous Supreme Court and appellate cases:
“Election procedures that are facially neutral violate the Fifteenth Amendment if they are adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose [cite omitted]. ‘Racial discrimination need only be one purpose, and not even a primary purpose, of an official act’ in order to violate the prohibitions on election procedures enacted with a racially discriminatory intent [cites omitted].”
“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘Discriminatory intent is simply not amenable to calibration. Either it is a factor that has influenced a legislative choice or it is not’ [cite omitted]. Once a racial intent is demonstrated, it is no defense to claim the same law would have been enacted regardless of the racially discriminatory motive [cite omitted]. If race played any role at all in the enactment of an election procedure, the procedure violates the Fifteenth Amendment and dooms the procedure.”
Continuing, “Proof of racial animus or racial hatred is not necessary to prove an unconstitutional racial intent in enacting an election procedure. Actions taken with the intent of effectuating a disproportionately negative impact on a racial group are violative of the intent standard of the Fifteenth Amendment [cite omitted].”
The suit also noted that the 800,000 non-citizens authorized to vote by this law would make up 15 percent of the total voters in the city. “This is greater than the margin of victory in many municipal elections,” it said.
In announcing the “Republican” suit, GOP National Chairman Ronna McDaniel said, “American elections should be decided by American citizens. If Democrats can subvert elections this flagrantly in America’s largest city, they can do it anywhere.”
The Republican suit focuses on the citizenship question, as the first suit does, but also goes into other specific statutory provisions that it claims are violated by the law. One, in particular, is a provision contained in the Home Rule section of the state law that requires a public referendum if a municipality wishes to change “the method of nominating, electing, or removing any elected official.”
The cases were both filed in Richmond County. It remains to be seen if the cases will be consolidated. It also remains to be seen whether the New York courts will move fast enough to have a legal answer by November. I should also note that both are filed in state — not federal — court so we could have another round of arguments before this is all settled.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
