Reconceiving Citizenship: Noncitizen Voting in New York City Municipal Elections as a Case Study in Immigrant Integration and Local Governance

Abstract

In this paper, I use New York City’s consideration of an amendment to its Charter that would extend voting rights to noncitizens in municipal elections as a case study in immigrant integration and local governance. I argue that New York City’s biggest challenge in moving this issue forward is dealing successfully with two related questions: 1.) why N.Y. City Council should be able to decide who the People are without approval from Albany and 2.) whether it should attempt to enact measure without a referendum. I first examine role of local government in regulating lives of immigrants, contrasting enforcement-oriented strategies with those that are more integration-oriented. I then spotlight federal law obstacles to noncitizen suffrage, concluding that while neither federal criminal nor immigration law prevents state or local governments from extending franchise to noncitizens in state or local matters, federal law imposes certain impediments that may deter some noncitizens from registering or that could carry serious immigration consequences for those who vote in violation of federal law. I then focus on state law obstacles, including New York’s Constitution, its state election law and its home rule provisions. I contrast other recent experiences with noncitizen suffrage around country, looking at both municipal and school board elections. Finally, I provide some thoughts on best practices in moving issue of noncitizen suffrage in New York City and other locales forward. I conclude that although New York law is ambiguous enough that good arguments can be made for why neither Albany’s approval nor a city-wide referendum is required, given New York City’s historic relationship with Albany and power State legislature has to preempt local law on election matters, if City Council attempts to expand franchise to noncitizen voters without a referendum or comparable measure, it could trigger preemptive action in Albany or lengthy, divisive, and costly battles in courts.