Federal Judge Rules Law Barring Noncitizens From Voting Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a law barring noncitizens from voting in federal elections violates the U.S. Constitution, dismissing federal charges against a woman accused of voting in the 2020 presidential election. U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz, who was appointed by President Biden, stated in his 31-page ruling that the Constitution grants states, not Congress, the authority to determine voter qualifications.

The ruling came in the case of Chelsea Cox, a woman originally from Jamaica who voted in the 2020 election despite not being a U.S. citizen. Leibowitz determined that the federal law criminalizing noncitizen voting, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, is unconstitutional as applied to Cox. "The Constitution commits to the States, and the States alone, the general power to set voter qualifications in federal elections," Leibowitz wrote. "This is clear from both the text of the document and the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787."

Leibowitz rejected the federal government's argument that its broad authority over immigration and noncitizens extended to barring them from voting in federal elections. He acknowledged Congress's extensive powers regarding immigration but stated these are not "blank checks" that can override constitutional constraints.

The judge also addressed the government's reliance on the Elections Clause, which allows Congress to regulate federal elections. Leibowitz found that the statute in question was not designed to regulate election procedures or prevent fraud, but rather to create a federal voter qualification by defining who could vote.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, criticized the ruling, calling it "insane" and predicting it would be overturned. He argued that such decisions undermine laws that ban noncitizen voting. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom, echoed this sentiment, calling the ruling "patently wrong" and suggesting the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals would likely overturn it. Spakovsky cited Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress authority over naturalization, arguing this gives the federal government power to ban noncitizens from participating in the democratic process.

Spakovsky also referred to the 2011 case Bluman v. FEC, in which then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the government may exclude noncitizens from activities related to democratic self-government. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed this decision. However, Bluman v. FEC dealt with campaign contributions and expenditures, not a federal prosecution for voting.

Anhishek Kambil, a partner at Holtzman Vogel Law Firm, expressed surprise if the federal government did not prevail on appeal. He pointed to Oregon v. Mitchell, where the Supreme Court ruled the federal government could set the voting age in federal elections, suggesting a precedent for federal authority in regulating voter qualifications. Kambil noted that the judge's interpretation in this case complicated the matter.

While Leibowitz dismissed the federal charges, the ruling does not prevent Florida from pursuing state charges against Cox for voting in the election.

President Biden nominated Leibowitz to the federal bench in 2024, and his confirmation by the Senate was bipartisan. This ruling marks his most politically significant decision to date.