In Response to some comments on a recent article, “The Right to Vote is an Exclusive Right of Citizens: New York to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote”, the constitutional and political argument against the city’s bill was developed further.
(This will retain the critique and then response format).
"Anyone that legally has the right to live and work in the city is directly impacted by local elections. I can't think of any ethical reason why they should not be allowed to vote. This is not voting for state office or federal office. Also, as you said there is nothing in the constitution that forbids it. This just seems like basic sanity to me and should be the norm everywhere. I am currently living in Germany and there are some types of local things I can vote for even though I am a USA citizen. Especially in a city with a large amount of legal foreign residents it makes sense to include them because their concerns do matter to the city. If you ignore their concerns it can also bring great harm to the city so it makes sense to provide representation. Why is it partisan to allow people that live in a city to vote on their representation in that city? This is not for a state office or a federal office. What impact does that have on state or federal elections? I am living in Germany right now and there are some elections here that people can vote on as a non-citizen so long as they are legally here. I don't see the issue.
There are 800,000 residents who would be immediately eligible to vote, with the requirement of being in the city for only 30 days—a provision that even Eric Adams has expressed concern over.There are two points of concern, legally and politically. The first, I already addressed in depth. Albany Law School professor Vincent Bonventre, said, “Although the provision [referring to the Constitution, Article 2, Section ] does not explicitly say that a ‘non-citizen may not vote’ or that only citizens may vote, the implications seems pretty clear that the right to vote is exclusive to citizens—they are the only ones mentioned and nothing else suggests the right to vote may be extended to others.” Politically, this bill would do two things: change the electorate and turn NYC into a one-party rule. Electorate just means a body of voters. In the U.S., this also suggests the electors who cast votes in presidential elections, usually by state party convention: meaning, should a Democrat have won that state's points, Democratic electors cast their vote, and same is true for Republicans. Electors can be elected officials or party leaders in the state, or people who have some kind of personal or professional connection with the party’s candidate.
By diluting the number of voters in NYC, the Democratic Party would have successful unopposed rule; so that, even if residents are not allowed to directly vote in federal elections, they will have a voice in municipal elections, that are significant for conventions nominating electors. The politics, by default, will be unabashedly swayed. As an entire state, New York will be neither Constitutionally or fairly represented; hence, should the right to vote be extended to non-citizens in NYC, then New York State must be divided into three electorates, effectively separating NYC from the rest of the State.