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.

In a move sparking heated debate, welfare offices and other agencies in 49 U.S. states are distributing voter registration forms to migrants without requiring proof of citizenship. Only Arizona, which recently enacted a law barring the practice for state forms but not federal ones, stands apart. This widespread practice has prompted calls from Republicans and conservatives for federal action to halt the distribution of these forms.

No Proof of Citizenship Required

Federal voting forms do not mandate proof of U.S. citizenship, although it is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. This loophole has led to concerns about the integrity of the voter registration process. Migrants with humanitarian parole, refugee, or asylum status, who are eligible for benefits, often visit these offices where voter registration takes place, increasing the likelihood of non-citizens inadvertently registering to vote.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 requires states to register voters at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and agencies where Americans apply for public benefits. These offices must provide voter registration forms along with application papers. If applicants attest that they are U.S. citizens, this is accepted as valid, leading to automatic voter registration.

Legislative Response: The SAVE Act

In response to these concerns, the House Administration Committee recently approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This proposed legislation would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote by mail, at a DMV, or at a welfare agency office. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who introduced the measure, stressed the importance of preventing illegal voter registration.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the need for greater enforcement measures to ensure that only American citizens vote in U.S. elections. Ryan Walker, executive vice president at the Heritage Foundation’s sister group, Heritage Action, supports the SAVE Act, arguing it will restore confidence in the electoral process.

Opposition to the SAVE Act

The left-leaning Campaign Legal Center opposes the SAVE Act, calling it a “shameful” measure that undermines trust in the electoral process. The Center argues that concerns over non-citizen voting are exaggerated and not substantiated by evidence. They assert that the bill could result in eligible U.S. citizens being incorrectly prevented from voting.

Evidence of Non-Citizen Voting

Despite opposition, federal prosecutions, state investigations, and audits have shown instances of non-citizens being registered to vote. In Georgia, left-wing voter groups sued Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for attempting to implement citizenship verification methods. Hundreds of non-citizens have been caught casting ballots in various elections, highlighting the potential for voter fraud.

Future of the SAVE Act

House Republican leaders have yet to schedule a floor vote for the SAVE Act, but it may come up before the August recess. Even if it passes the House, the bill faces a challenging path in the Democrat-controlled Senate. However, several Republican senators have already expressed their support.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) stressed the importance of preventing non-citizens from voting, stating that the SAVE Act would defend election integrity and preserve public trust in the voting process.

A new report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has highlighted ongoing issues with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processes at a major international airport. Between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, CBP agents at this airport released at least 383 inadmissible travelers into the U.S. who were legally prohibited from entering the country. Instead of detaining and processing them for removal, these travelers were released and ordered to return on their own recognizance, with 168 (44%) failing to return for their removal flights.

The report, which redacts the name and location of the airport and regional offices, found that the regional CBP and ICE detention and removal processes were ineffective. ICE officials reportedly denied CBP’s overnight detention requests for inadmissible travelers due to “staffing and bed space limitations.” Additionally, CBP cited insufficient overtime funds to detain travelers after operating hours and logistical challenges in transferring travelers to another airport.

The investigation also revealed that CBP agents failed to issue “notices to appear” (NTAs) to 77 inadmissible travelers who did not return for their deportation flights. Issuing NTAs would have transferred these travelers to ICE for removal proceedings. CBP agents claimed they lacked an effective process to track inadmissible travelers who failed to return for their removal flights.

The OIG report also found that CBP reduced the number of staff responsible for issuing NTAs, contributing to a backlog of unissued NTAs for identified inadmissible travelers. This report follows previous OIG findings that CBP agents were not properly screening and vetting noncitizens released into the country, including known and suspected terrorists.

Despite claims of inadequate funding, Congress has increased CBP funding by $2.98 billion since fiscal 2021. However, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security identified consistent misuse and abuse of taxpayer resources by DHS, particularly through its failure to detain illegal aliens and use ICE detention resources as intended.

Under the Biden administration, ICE has not used detention facilities at full capacity, costing taxpayers between $1.3 billion and $1.43 billion annually. The administration’s fiscal 2024 budget requested significant cuts to CBP and ICE operations compared to fiscal 2023 levels. In contrast, the previous administration’s fiscal 2021 budget requested 60,000 ICE beds, whereas the Biden administration requested 32,500 and 25,000 beds for fiscal 2023 and 2024, respectively.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has faced criticism for these policies. In a recent House Homeland Security budget hearing, U.S. Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., challenged Mayorkas on his request for fewer ICE detention beds than Congress funded. Despite being given more money than requested, Mayorkas has claimed that DHS lacks the financial resources needed to secure the southern border.

Since January 2021, over 11 million illegal entries have been recorded, including those who evaded capture. In the first six months of fiscal 2024, more than 1.7 million illegal entries were reported. In February, Mayorkas became the first sitting cabinet member in U.S. history to be impeached after claiming for years that the southern border was secure. In April, he admitted that there was a crisis at the southern border.

The OIG report underscores the need for improved processes and resources to address the ongoing challenges at the U.S. border and ensure the effective detention and removal of inadmissible travelers.