Municipal Franchise Restricted to Citizens: Fossella v. Adams Precedent

Introduction

In Fossella v. Adams (2025 NYSlipOp 01668), decided March 20, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the validity of Local Law 11—a New York City charter amendment permitting certain non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections. The New York City Council passed the law in December 2021; it became effective in January 2022 due to mayoral inaction. Plaintiffs, including elected officials and registered voters, challenged the law as violating Article II, Section 1 of the New York Constitution, the State Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law. The Court’s majority held that the State Constitution “limits voting to citizens” and invalidated the law on that ground. This commentary examines the background, the Court’s reasoning, the precedents invoked, and the broader ramifications for municipal suffrage and home rule in New York.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Judge Wilson’s majority opinion concluded:

Article II, Section 1 of the New York Constitution—entitled “Qualifications of voters”—provides that “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election” and, when read with Sections 5 and 7, establishes suffrage exclusively for citizens in all state and municipal elections.
Article IX (the Home Rule article) does not override Article II’s citizenship requirement; its definition of “people” expressly incorporates Section 1 of Article II, thereby reinforcing that only citizens may vote.
The New York Election Law (§ 5-102) is not a “notwithstanding” preemption of local laws; it sets a default rule but does not forbid home rule enactments unless it explicitly says so.
Local Law 11, therefore, lacks constitutional authority and is void for attempting to enfranchise noncitizens in municipal elections.

A dissent by Judge Rivera argued that home rule authority under Article IX permits local enfranchisement of noncitizens and that, if Local Law 11 changed the “method” of electing officers, it should have been submitted to a public referendum under Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e). The majority rejected that ground, but the dissent would have invalidated the law on process-based referendum grounds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Matter of Ahern v. South Buffalo Ry. Co. (303 NY 545 [1952]) – affirms that courts will uphold a duly enacted law unless the Constitution clearly prohibits it.
Police Benevolent Assn. v. City of New York (40 NY3d 417 [2023]) and Lighthouse Shores, Inc. v. Town of Islip (41 NY2d 7 [1976]) – extend the principle of deference to local legislative enactments.
People ex rel. Smith v. Pease (27 NY 45 [1863]) – early case holding that Article II, Section 1 “declares who may exercise the elective franchise” and excludes all others from voting.
Matter of Hopper v. Britt (203 NY 144 [1911]) – reaffirmed exclusivity of voter qualifications prescribed in Article II, Section 1.
Spitzer v. Village of Fulton (172 NY 285 [1902]) – held that Article II’s voter qualifications apply to “general governmental affairs” but do not preclude the legislature from imposing additional qualifications in limited local ballot propositions concerning financial or private affairs of municipalities.
Johnson v. City of New York (274 NY 411 [1937]) – upheld a proportional representation scheme in City Council elections, treating all electors alike and not distinguishing between citizens and noncitizens.
Matter of Blaikie v. Power (13 NY2d 134 [1963]) – upheld “limited voting” in municipal at-large council elections; the plurality and concurrence view Article II, Section 1 as a floor guaranteeing rights to citizens, not a ceiling limiting municipal electoral design.

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Text and Structure of Article II: Section 1 speaks of “every citizen” voting and is followed in the article by provisions (Section 5 and Section 7) that use “citizens” when prescribing registration and ballot methods. The Court held that the repeated use of “citizen” cannot be a mere minimum floor; it must define an exclusive category for voter eligibility.
Historical and Case Law Support: Citing Smith v. Pease (1863) and Hopper (1911), the majority emphasized that for over 150 years New York jurisprudence read the Constitution as limiting suffrage to citizens. The argument that pre–Civil War statutes used “inhabitant” was refuted by noting those statutes disenfranchised citizens, not enfranchised noncitizens, and were never judicially tested in that context. Spitzer confirmed that only in narrowly defined local financial referenda could the legislature add qualifications beyond citizenship; municipal elections for public officers are not in that category.
Home Rule (Article IX) Does Not Overrule Article II: Although Article IX grants broad local legislative power and commands a liberal construction of home rule, Section 3(d)(3) defines “people” (the electorate for local officers) as those “entitled to vote as provided in Section one of Article two.” Thus Article IX itself incorporates Article II’s citizenship requirement into the definition of local voting populations.

Impact on Future Cases and Law

Fossella v. Adams cements the principle that municipal charters cannot expand the franchise to noncitizens absent an express constitutional or statutory amendment. Future litigation challenging noncitizen suffrage initiatives in cities like Buffalo or Rochester will cite Fossella for the proposition that home rule power cannot displace the citizenship ceiling on voting. The decision may spur legislative efforts at the state level to amend the Constitution or the Election Law if expansion of local franchise is desired. It also clarifies the limits of “liberal construction” under Article IX: home rule cannot be construed so liberally as to erase explicit constitutional qualifications.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article II, Section 1 (“Qualifications of Voters”): This constitutional provision guarantees that every U.S. citizen meeting age and residency requirements may vote and, by implication, excludes all others.
“Ceiling” vs. “Floor” Debate: A “floor” view treats “citizen” as a minimum entitlement (others could also vote); a “ceiling” view treats “citizen” as the exclusive category (no one else may vote). The Court adopts the “ceiling” interpretation.
Article IX Home Rule: Grants counties, cities, towns, and villages broad authority to adopt local laws and elect officers, but defines “people” (the electorate) by reference to Article II, Section 1.
“Means or Includes” Construction: In Article IX’s definitions, “people” “mean or include” citizens entitled by Article II, Section 1. The phrase does not enlarge beyond the specified definition but confirms it.
General vs. Special Law: A “general law” applies statewide to all or most municipalities; a “special law” applies only to one or a few. Home rule permits municipalities to adopt “local” laws not inconsistent with general law.

Conclusion

Fossella v. Adams reaffirms that under the New York Constitution, suffrage—statewide or municipal—is restricted to citizens as defined in Article II, Section 1. Municipalities lack authority under Article IX home rule to extend voting rights to noncitizens unless the Constitution itself is amended or the state legislature explicitly authorizes such an expansion. This decision preserves the integrity of the statewide citizenship requirement while delineating the permissible scope of local electoral innovation. Any future expansion of the local franchise to noncitizens will require a constitutional amendment or clear legislative command.