Republicans in New York City are in a legal battle for survival with the recent passage of noncitizen voting. But it appears that they have a solid case in court to invalidate the law.
You may recall that Eric Adams, the newly elected mayor of what I half-jokingly call "The People's Republic of" New York City ran the clock out on a local law amending the city charter to allow "lawful permanent residents and persons authorized to work in the United States in New York city to participate in municipal elections."
Basically, Adams chickened out on taking a position on the issue, allowing noncitizen voting to pass into law without his signature. Thanks to Adams' "no-position position," more than 800,000 noncitizens and "Dreamers" living in the five boroughs for the past 30 days can now participate to elect future mayors, comptrollers, City Council members and borough presidents.
Or can they? The RNC, a group of Republican lawmakers, and naturalized citizens filed a lawsuit in Staten Island, the last bastion of political parity in New York City, challenging the validity of the law on multiple grounds. New York GOP Chairman Nick Langworthy argues that "[t]he law is clear and the ethics are even clearer: we shouldn't be allowing citizens of other nations to vote in our elections, full stop."
It seems, at first glance, that Langworthy is on pretty solid ground.
The GOP lawsuit claims that noncitizen voting violates the New York State Constitution. Specifically, the lawsuit points to Article II, Section 1 of the state constitution, which provides that "[e]very citizen shall be entitled to vote ... provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state ... for thirty days."
Note that the state constitution uses the word "citizen," not person. Unlike other jurisdictions, like Maryland, New York's constitution has no carve-out empowering municipalities to allow noncitizens to vote without state approval.
Additionally, Langworthy and company further argue that, pursuant to Article II, Section 5, that "[l]aws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage" established in the state constitution. Again, the choice of language is crucial.
As further support, the lawsuit also argues that Article IX, Section 1 specifically provides that "every local government ... shall have a legislative body elective by the people thereof," where "people" is defined as "[p]ersons entitled to vote as provided in section one of article two of this constitution." Thus, any reference to "people" really means "citizen."
New York further codified these constitutional sections in its state Election Law, which the GOP claims that Adams and the City Council broke as well. Specifically, Section 5-102 states, "no person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States." Seems pretty cut and dry, right?
But wait, there's more.
The GOP additionally argues that New York City violated the state's Municipal Home Rule Law, which requires"changes [to] the method of nominating, electing or removing an elective officer" be subject to mandatory referendum, which New York City never held.
The effects of noncitizen voting on the viability of NYC Republicans cannot be emphasized enough. If allowed the law is allowed to stand, noncitizens will make up 15% of the electorate, which, as the lawsuit states, "will cause an abrupt and sizable change to the makeup of the electorate," causing conservative politicos "to change the way they campaign for office and will materially affect their likelihood of future electoral victory."
Not to mention that voters like the named naturalized citizens that are party to the lawsuit will see their voting power diluted by those noncitizens who have not undertaken the arduous path to citizenship.
Interestingly enough, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has embraced several leftist talking points, has come out against noncitizen voting. Bloomberg expressed concerns of potential confusion at the polls and a total lack of faith in the NYC Board of Elections.
"Ballots in local elections often include state offices [judgeships, for instance] and statewide referendums that noncitizens wouldn't be eligible to vote for," said Bloomberg. "Preventing noncitizens from voting on those matters would be extremely difficult under any circumstances. Leaving it to the city's board of elections, a notoriously incompetent patronage mill, is a recipe for disaster."
Bloomberg even said the quiet part of the Democrats' real motivation aloud. By passing noncitizen voting, Adams and the City Council have lent "credence to the Republican argument that Democrats support immigration reform purely to pad their own voter rolls."
So, there it is: the stakes are high. If the courts allow noncitizen voting to stand, embattled Republicans will likely never again hold elective office in "The People's Republic of" New York City. Luckily, it appears that the law is on their side. Let's hope the courts are, too.
Gene Berardelli is a street-smart trial attorney who, through his time as the Law Chair of the Republican Party in Brooklyn, New York, has developed a solid reputation as an election attorney successfully representing conservative candidates. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.