New York City’s Attempt to Manufacture Democrat Voters, Conclusion

Common sense would indicate that the plain wording of the New York State Constitution and Election Law, as well as the Federal law cited above, would bar a noncitizen from voting, and when it comes to a state or federal election, your common sense would be correct. But enough loopholes have been built into these laws to give proponents of the new law a very good argument in favor of the constitutionality of noncitizen voting in local elections.

DOES THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THIS CHANGE?

Surprisingly, on this level, the arguments against the new law are more likely to be successful than those presented in our earlier discussion.

“In 2013, Mayor Bloomberg’s office also opposed (noncitizen voting) on the basis that, even if not contrary to New York’s constitution or its election law, under New York’s home rule statute and the city charter, any expansion of the franchise had to be via referendum. Section 23(2)(e) of New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law, along with Sec. 38 of New York City’s charter, provides that a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it ‘[a]bolishes an elective office, or changes the method of … electing … an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office.’ There is a powerful argument that expanding the franchise for municipal elections to include noncitizen residents is a change in method: it would change the very definition of who makes up the electorate; it may also require a change in procedures for voting, to make sure noncitizens cast the proper ballot. Where the state legislature sets forth categories of local laws subject to mandatory referendum, as it did with Sec. 23(2)(e), New York courts have said that they will interpret those categories when called upon to do so.”

So then, why didn’t the City Council authorize a voter referendum on this issue? Simply put, they fear defeat of the measure at the polls. “A referendum increases the chances of defeat. A similar initiative to extend the franchise in local elections to lawful residents was narrowly defeated in Portland, Maine in 2010...A proposal to allow noncitizen voting in school board elections in San Francisco’s was defeated by a 2.9 percent margin in 2004…and again, in 2010, by a much wider margin.”

Recall also the fate of the Minneapolis City Council’s decision to abolish their police force. After initially promising to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a “Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention,” the members of the City Council ultimately submitted the issue to a voter referendum. According to NPR, “(v)oters in Minneapolis…resoundingly rejected a proposal to reinvent policing in their city…(a)pproximately 56% of voters rejected a ballot question that would have removed the Minneapolis Police Department from the city charter and replaced it with a ‘public-health oriented’ Department of Public Safety.”

And these pills being completely natural, one viagra order shop need not worry about the safety as the most important condition of the FDA approval from the USA. Maintain a gap between two drugs intake, do not consume it at a time. cheap generic sildenafil In California, there are range of purchase generic viagra http://midwayfire.com/minutes/09-09-08.pdf institutes that give driving education to people. The dick pills, so called as they levitra price are dedicated in their task and they remain updated with all necessary technologies so that they can cure every eye problem with perfection.

With this history, it is no wonder the New York City Council acted without voter approval. But thre is a more important question – why act at all? Why add an estimated 800,000 to one million voters to local elections?

The answer is obvious. As late as 2014, statistical data shows that the overwhelming majority of immigrants tend to register as Democrats. In New York alone, 60% of immigrants identified as Democrats, while only 15% claimed to be Republicans. In Massachusetts, it was 67% Democrat, 17% Republican, and in New Jersey, 62% to 14%. According to Pew Research, “Hispanic registered voters have historically identified more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party…(a)bout two-thirds (64%) of Hispanic voters say they identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 24% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.”

And just who are the majority of immigrants to New York City? According to the American Immigration Council, “(n)early a quarter of New York residents are immigrants…In 2018, 4.4 million immigrants (foreign-born individuals) comprised 23 percent of the population…The top countries of origin for immigrants were the Dominican Republic (11 percent of immigrants), China (9 percent), Mexico (5 percent), Jamaica (5 percent), and India (4 percent).”

Thus, the question is not, why is the overwhelming Democrat New York City Council seeking to expand their voter base to resident aliens. The question is, why shouldn’t they seek to add more Democrat voters and a permanent majority?

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.