Written by Thomas Whitaker.

A New York courtroom just drove a stake through a wild idea—letting noncitizens vote in local elections—and honestly, it’s about time the dust settled. The state’s top judges ruled 6-1 on Thursday, killing a 2022 law that had progressives buzzing and conservatives fuming, ending a saga that’s been more about principle than practicality.

How It All Started—and Crashed

Rewind to late 2021. Bill de Blasio’s mayoral clock was ticking down, and the New York City Council seized the moment, passing a law to hand municipal voting rights to over 800,000 noncitizens—folks with green cards or work visas. Neither de Blasio nor Eric Adams, the new guy, bothered to veto it, so it slid into place in 2022. The pitch? Let these taxpaying residents pick their mayor or council reps, even if federal and state races stayed off-limits.

Except it never happened. Republicans, led by Joe Borelli—back then the council’s GOP minority leader—sued faster than you can say “ballot box.” Their ammo: New York’s constitution, which says only citizens over 18 get to vote. “Some lawsuits are Hail Marys,” Borelli quipped after the win, “but this? Open and shut from the jump.” He wasn’t wrong—lower courts had already slapped the law down twice before the Court of Appeals delivered the final blow.

What’s striking is the near-unanimity. Six justices, including the progressive wing, said no dice. The law’s backers—dreaming of a civic boost for 800,000 voices—didn’t see this coming, but maybe they should’ve. Constitutions aren’t suggestion boxes.

The Citizenship Wall

The fight hinged on one phrase: “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people.” Republicans hammered it home—citizens only, no exceptions. Progressives and voter advocates pushed back, saying it’s a floor, not a roof—local governments should be free to add more voters if they want. Nice try, but the court wasn’t buying it.

Chief Judge Rowan Wilson laid it bare: “Call ‘citizen’ a minimum, and you’re opening the door to absurdity—13-year-olds voting, maybe even dogs with a good lawyer.” His point lands like a brick. The constitution’s not a buffet—you don’t get to pick and choose who’s “eligible” beyond its terms. It’s a rulebook, and “citizen” is the entry fee, plain as day.

Think of it like a club membership. You don’t get a say in the rules unless you’ve paid your dues—here, that’s citizenship. Sure, noncitizens pay taxes and shovel snow like the rest of us, but voting’s a step beyond. The framers drew that line for a reason, and Wilson’s crew just reminded everyone it’s still there.

Winners, Losers, and What’s Next

The reactions rolled in fast. Michael Tannousis, a Staten Island assemblyman and plaintiff, took a personal angle: “My immigrant parents worked years to vote as citizens—this ruling honors that.” NYGOP Chair Ed Cox went harder, blasting “radical Democrats” for overreach, while their lawyer, Michael Hawrylchak, praised the court for spotting the constitution’s “hard limits.” Victory laps all around for the GOP.

Across the aisle, Speaker Adrienne Adams kept it civil but glum. “We hoped to amplify the 800,000 New Yorkers who contribute but can’t vote locally,” she said, tipping her hat to the court even as she mourned the loss. It’s a fair lament—local elections can turn on a few hundred votes, and this could’ve shaken things up. But with the law dead before it even kicked in, we’ll never know.

This isn’t just a New York tale, either. Places like San Francisco let noncitizens vote for school boards, and Vermont’s got towns doing the same for local stuff. New York’s stab was bigger—800,000 potential voters dwarf those experiments—and it hit a louder wall. Nationwide, 19 states have locked in bans on noncitizen voting since 2020, riding a wave of immigration skepticism. This ruling might spook other cities from trying the same stunt, or at least make them double-check their charters first.

Our Take

I’ll level with you: this decision feels right, if not exactly warm and fuzzy. Six justices—progressives included—saying the same thing means the constitution’s not up for debate; it’s a contract. The push to let noncitizens vote had heart—giving a stake to people who pay into the system—but it ignored the fine print. Citizenship’s a gatekeeper for a reason, and pretending otherwise risks unraveling what makes the vote sacred.

I’ve seen voting laws bend plenty in my years on this beat, but there’s a difference between flexibility and fiat. Tannousis’ story about his parents sticks with me—my own great-aunt waited a decade to cast her first ballot after Ellis Island, and she’d tell you it was worth it. New York’s council took a swing, missed, and now we’re back where we started: citizens decide. That’s not exclusion; it’s definition. The court didn’t just rule—it clarified. And in a world of gray, that’s no small thing.