A decision by a federal judge in Miami has opened a significant legal debate regarding who has the authority to penalize the voting of individuals who are not U.S. citizens, but the ruling does not mean that permanent residents or other foreigners can begin to vote legally in the United States.
The district judge David S. Leibowitz, of the Southern District of Florida, dismissed the federal criminal case against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, a Jamaican citizen accused of voting in the 2020 presidential elections despite not having U.S. citizenship.
In a 31-page ruling issued on October 1, Leibowitz concluded that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by enacting Section 611 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal statute used to prosecute Cox.
The full ruling in United States v. Cox states that the general authority to establish the requirements a person must meet to vote belongs to the states and not to the federal Congress.
However, the scope of the decision is much more limited than a headline might suggest: the judge ruled on the constitutionality of the law as it was applied in the Cox case and did not automatically invalidate the statute for all of the United States.
What law did the judge declare unconstitutional?
The case revolves around 18 U.S.C. § 611, a federal statute incorporated into the Criminal Code in 1996.
The current version published by the United States House of Representatives states, with certain exceptions, that it is illegal for a foreign person to vote in an election that is intended, in whole or in part, to choose a president, vice president, senator, or member of the House of Representatives.
Rape can be punished with a fine, up to one year in prison, or both penalties.
Cox was accused of a misdemeanor under that provision for allegedly casting a vote in Broward County on October 29, 2020, knowing that she was not a U.S. citizen.
Why did the judge say that the law is unconstitutional?
Leibowitz's reasoning does not involve granting foreigners a new right to vote.
The issue discussed was another: whether Congress has the constitutional power to directly decide who meets the qualifications to vote in a federal election.
The judge interpreted that the U.S. Constitution leaves the general definition of voter qualifications in the hands of the states, although Congress does have broad authority to regulate aspects such as the time, place, and manner of federal elections.
According to the resolution, section 611 is not limited to regulating how an election is held but directly establishes a condition regarding who is eligible to vote.
For that reason, Leibowitz concluded that Congress had invaded a power reserved for the states.
So, can non-citizens vote?
No.
That is probably the most important point for permanent residents, including thousands of Cubans with a green card.
The decision does not require Florida or any other state to allow foreigners to vote.
Florida explicitly requires that a person be a citizen of the United States to register as a voter.
The Article 97.041 of the Florida Statutes requires U.S. citizenship, at least 18 years of age, legal residency in Florida, and valid voter registration.
In addition, state legislation maintains independent criminal sanctions.
The Article 104.15 of the Florida Statutes states that anyone who votes voluntarily, knowing that they are not a qualified voter, commits a third-degree felony.
Leibowitz himself emphasized in his decision that Florida can prohibit and penalize exactly the conduct for which Cox was accused.
The ruling also does not eliminate the federal law nationwide
Another important distinction is that the ruling comes from a federal trial court.
This means that the decision resolves the case against Cox, but does not automatically compel other federal judges in Florida, Missouri, Texas, New York, or any other state to adopt the same interpretation.
Section 611 continues to appear in the United States Code, and the Department of Justice continues to bring cases under that statute.
The federal government has already initiated the process to appeal Leibowitz's ruling, so the matter will need to go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
An appeals court could uphold, modify, or overturn the decision.
Another judge in Miami has come to a different conclusion
The judicial controversy is even more significant because not all judges who have examined the argument have reached the same conclusion.
On September 9, federal judge Jacqueline Becerra, also in Miami, denied a request to dismiss the case against Wilner Renaud, a Haitian citizen accused of voting in the 2022 federal elections.
Renaud had also argued that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to approve the federal ban.
Becerra allowed the process to continue.
The existence of different decisions even within the same judicial district shows that the constitutionality of this law is far from being definitively resolved.
What does this have to do with the Cuban arrested in Missouri?
The debate becomes immediately relevant for the Cuban community following the arrest of Andrés García, a 64-year-old Cuban with legal permanent residency in the United States.
According to the Federal Prosecutor's Office for the Western District of Missouri, García was born in Cuba, emigrated to the United States during his childhood, and obtained permanent residency in 2009.
The authorities maintain that he had registered to vote years earlier and that he had participated in at least 15 elections over approximately two decades.
The prosecution also claims that it knew he was not a U.S. citizen.
García maintains the presumption of innocence, and the charges must be proven in court.
Can the Miami ruling overturn the Cuban case?
Not automatically.
García's case is being handled in Missouri, in a different federal court and under another appeals circuit.
The judge handling his case is not obliged to follow Leibowitz's interpretation.
His defense could cite the decision from Miami as a persuasive argument if he chooses to challenge the constitutionality of the same federal law, but the court in Missouri may dismiss that reasoning.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to assert that the Cuban's arrest was invalidated by the ruling in Florida.
The Trump administration has increased these processes
The legal dispute arises amid an intensification of federal investigations into potential votes by non-citizens.
The Department of Justice announced this week charges related to election crimes against 16 foreign nationals in various states.
Among the accusations are votes in federal elections, allegedly fraudulent voter registrations, false declarations of citizenship, and untruths during naturalization processes.
The Department of Justice maintains that these investigations aim to protect the integrity of the elections.
The accused maintain their presumption of innocence in all cases until a guilty verdict is reached.
Being a permanent resident does not grant the right to vote
For Cubans with legal permanent residency, the practical conclusion has not changed.
Having a green card does not equate to being a U.S. citizen.
A permanent resident can live and work legally in the United States, but they do not acquire the right to vote in federal elections by that fact.
In Florida, you also cannot register or vote in state elections until you obtain citizenship.
The Leibowitz ruling discusses which government—federal or state—has constitutional authority to establish and enforce certain electoral requirements. It does not turn permanent residents into voters.
What really changes after the ruling?
For now, the direct consequence is very clear: the federal charge under section 611 against Chelsea Cox has been dismissed.
The decision also provides a new legal argument for other foreigners facing charges under the same law.
But it does not eliminate state prohibitions, does not compel other judges to dismiss similar cases, and does not grant a general right to vote to individuals without citizenship.
The next important battle will be in the appellate courts.
Until a higher court establishes a binding rule—or the Supreme Court eventually issues a ruling—the constitutionality of the federal law will remain subject to judicial dispute.
Related videos:
Filed under: