New York City’s contentious law permitting noncitizens to vote in local elections has been declared unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals, effectively nullifying the measure in a decisive 6-1 ruling on Thursday.

The law, originally passed by the City Council in late 2021, was aimed at allowing approximately 800,000 legal permanent residents, including green card holders, to participate in city elections. However, the court’s ruling emphasized the clear restrictions outlined in the state constitution, which explicitly limits voting rights to U.S. citizens.

“Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens,” the court’s opinion stated.

The decision represents a significant win for Republicans and other critics of the law, who have long argued that allowing noncitizens to vote undermines the integrity of the electoral process. Opponents contended that the measure was not only legally dubious but also politically motivated, with the potential to dilute the voices of American citizens.

Nick Langworthy, Chairman of the New York State Republican Party, had previously denounced the law, and Thursday’s ruling validated his stance. Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa also weighed in, emphasizing the need to prioritize increasing voter participation among actual citizens rather than extending voting rights to noncitizens.

“With one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the country, our city needs to do more to engage working people who feel shut out of the process,” Sliwa said. “Before expanding voting rights to noncitizens, we should focus on ensuring that more New Yorkers feel their voices matter.”

Proponents of the law had contended that legal noncitizens contribute to their communities, pay taxes, and should, therefore, have a say in local governance. They viewed the measure as an inclusive step toward greater civic engagement. However, the court’s ruling has shut down any immediate hope of noncitizen voting in New York City elections, at least under current constitutional parameters.

The ruling puts an end to the legal battle at the state level, leaving supporters with few immediate options beyond attempting a constitutional amendment—an uphill battle in New York’s political landscape.

With this landmark decision, the debate over voting rights in the city is far from over, but for now, the state’s highest court has reaffirmed a fundamental principle: voting in New York remains a right reserved for citizens.

A Mississippi law that permits the counting of ballots received up to five days after an election is lawful, according to a federal judge’s ruling on July 28.

U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. cited the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which governs ballots from overseas citizens, in his decision.

“So if one federal statute implicitly allows post-election receipt of overseas ballots mailed by election day, that statute is presumed not to offend against the election-day statutes, from which one may infer that the similar Mississippi statute on post-election receipt is likewise inoffensive,” Judge Guirola wrote in his 24-page ruling.

The ruling dismissed cases brought by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. The Mississippi law mandates that officials count absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, provided they are received within five business days after the election.

The U.S. Constitution’s elections and electors clause grants Congress the authority to set Election Day for determining electors for president and vice president, as well as the date for voters choosing members of Congress. Congress subsequently established a single day for selecting electors and voting for members.

Republicans contended that the Mississippi law “contravenes those federal laws” by effectively extending Mississippi’s federal election past the Election Day established by Congress. They argued the law forced them to spend money to educate voters on the post-Election Day receipt deadline and sought to have the law declared illegal and blocked from enforcement.

Mississippi officials countered that the law does not directly conflict with federal statutes, as those statutes do not specify whether ballots must be received on or by Election Day.

Judge Guirola acknowledged that Republicans and the Libertarian Party did establish standing by showing they were harmed by the law. However, they failed to demonstrate that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. He referenced prior court rulings, including a 2023 district court ruling upholding an Illinois law that allows ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if received up to 14 days after Election Day. In that case, the judge noted that the attorney general of the United States “often seeks court-ordered extensions of ballot receipt deadlines to ensure that military voters are not disenfranchised.”

“These longstanding efforts by Congress and the executive branch to ensure that ballots cast by Americans living overseas are counted, so long as they are cast by Election Day, strongly suggest that statutes like the one at issue here are compatible with the Elections Clause,” Judge Guirola stated.

In the absence of federal law regulating absentee mail-in ballot procedures, states retain the authority to establish their lawful time, place, and manner boundaries. Since the Mississippi law is legal, there are no violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Judge Guirola concluded.

In a significant ruling on July 5, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to reinstate the use of unstaffed drop boxes for absentee ballots, reversing the prohibition that had been in effect since 2022. The court’s 4–3 decision marks a pivotal change in Wisconsin’s election procedures ahead of the 2024 elections.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that state law did not allow for absentee drop boxes to be placed anywhere other than in election clerk offices. This decision effectively banned the use of unmanned drop boxes, which had been widely utilized in previous elections to facilitate absentee voting.

The reversal of the 2022 ruling was influenced by a change in the court’s composition. A new justice was elected in 2023, which led to a re-evaluation of the previous decision. During the arguments in May, Justice Jill Karofsky questioned the validity of the 2022 ruling, suggesting that it may have been a mistake. “What if we just got it wrong? What if we made a mistake? Are we now supposed to just perpetuate that mistake into the future?” Karofsky asked during the proceedings.

The court heard arguments three months before the August 13 primary and six months ahead of the November presidential election. Attorneys representing Republican backers of the 2022 ruling contended that there had been no changes in the facts or the law to justify overturning a decision that was less than two years old. Misha Tseytlin, attorney for the Republican-controlled Legislature, argued that overturning the ruling could lead to future instability, as the court might have to revisit the issue whenever its composition changes.

However, Justice Karofsky countered this by pointing out the potential flaws in the 2022 decision, questioning whether the court should continue to uphold a ruling that was “egregiously wrong from the start” with “exceptionally weak” reasoning and damaging consequences.

Democrats and voting rights advocates argued that the 2022 ruling misinterpreted the law by concluding that absentee ballots could only be returned to a clerk’s office and not to a drop box controlled by the clerk. David Fox, attorney for the groups challenging the prohibition, described the current law as unworkable and unclear about where ballots can be returned.

Several justices expressed concerns about revisiting the previous ruling, with Justice Rebecca Bradley cautioning against the court acting as a “super Legislature” and giving municipal clerks excessive discretion in conducting elections.

The case was brought by voter mobilization group Priorities USA and the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Voters. Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which oversees the state’s elections, supported the use of drop boxes. Election officials from four counties, including the state’s two largest, also filed briefs in support of overturning the prohibition, arguing that drop boxes had been used securely for decades.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys highlighted the practical impact of the 2022 ruling, noting that over 1,600 absentee ballots arrived late and were not counted in the 2022 election when drop boxes were not in use. By contrast, in the 2020 election, when drop boxes were available, only 689 ballots arrived after Election Day, despite a significantly higher number of absentee voters.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate unstaffed drop boxes is a crucial development in the state’s election laws, potentially increasing accessibility and convenience for absentee voters. As the 2024 elections approach, this ruling may have significant implications for voter turnout and the administration of elections in Wisconsin.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.