Staten Island BP Fossella and NYC Republicans Sue to Stop Noncitizen Voting as Landmark Law Takes Effect

Republicans Sue to Stop Noncitizen Voting as Landmark Law Takes Effect

BY CHRIS TOBIAS

New York Republicans have filed a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of Intro 1867, the noncitizen voting law passed by the New York City Council, which went into effect on Monday, January 10. Mayor Eric Adams, the city Board of Elections, and the City Council are named defendants. "The right to vote is one of our most sacred privileges and obligations. Last night, legislation became law that makes a total mockery of the concept of American citizenship," said Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, the lead plaintiff in the case. "This unconstitutional act cheapens what it means to be a citizen and is an insult to every immigrant who has followed the law, taken citizenship classes, and swore an oath to our nation." Mayor Adams announced he would not veto the measure after being concerned about certain aspects of the Bill. In a statement released to the press on January 8, Adams said, "I believe that New Yorkers should have a say in their government, which is why I have and will continue to support this important legislation. While I initially had some concerns about one aspect of the Bill, I had a productive dialogue with my colleagues in government that put those concerns at ease. I believe allowing the legislation to be enacted is by far the best choice and look forward to bringing millions more into the democratic process." The Bill, which the Council approved in December 2020, would allow just over 800,000 legal permanent residents and certain immigrants with work authorization living in New York City to vote in municipal elections. However, they will not be allowed to vote in state or federal elections. Supporters argue that the law expands the franchise to immigrants who are a vital part of the city and pay local, state, and federal taxes. On the other hand, its critics claim the measure is unconstitutional and makes a "mockery" of US citizenship. The law will allow noncitizens to vote, starting with the 2023 city elections. l Supreme Court/ continued from page 10 relief in such cases on a class wide basis, or only in individual cases. This argument is based on the text of Section 1252(f)(1) of the immigration statute. Under the government’s position, noncitizens could only bring similar constitutional and statutory challenges individually through what is known as a habeas corpus action, making relief unattainable for many. Specifically, as Justice Sotomayor recognized, noncitizens overwhelmingly: are not represented by lawyers, do not speak English as a first language, and most are impoverished. In challenging the government’s argument on individual relief, Justice Sotomayor concluded: It’s hard to see how impoverished people, unfamiliar with the workings of this government, of this country, are going to find lawyers. It seems like a theoric [sic] offering to say that an individual hearing is of any benefit to them, counsel. Essentially, requiring individuals to raise constitutional and statutory claims on their own may mean that these important legal questions don’t get raised at all. In a study of nearly 500 habeas corpus cases filed between 2010 and 2020 in a federal court in Louisiana, only 15% of detained non-citizens who filed habeas petitions had counsel. Countless more likely couldn’t file a habeas petition due to their lack of counsel. The same report detailed that most habeas petitions were pending for an average of six months, prolonging detention and refuting the justices’ idea that a habeas petition can act as a backstop for already-prolonged detention. Additionally, if the Supreme Court accepts the government’s position, this interpretation of the statute would apply not only to this case, but to constitutional and statutory challenges in other immigration cases, including those outside of the detention context. This result could have disastrous consequences for noncitizens. It likely will be many months before the Supreme Court issues a decision on these cases, but it is encouraging to see the Justices challenging the government’s justifications for both the prolonged detention itself, as well as any limitations on the ways to get relief from such detention.l