A federal judge in Florida dismissed a charge against a Jamaican woman accused of voting in the 2020 election, concluding Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted the federal statute prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge in Florida dismissed a criminal charge against a Jamaican woman accused of voting in the 2020 federal election, ruling that the federal law used to prosecute her is unconstitutional as applied because the Constitution leaves the power to establish voter qualifications with the states.
U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz issued the 31-page decision Thursday in the case of Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, who had been prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 611, the federal statute making it unlawful for an “alien” to vote in an election involving candidates for president, vice president, the Senate or House of Representatives and certain other federal offices. The Oct. 1 ruling dismissed the charge against Cox but does not bind other federal judges confronting the same constitutional question. Reuters reported that the decision appears to be the first federal ruling finding the 1996 statute unconstitutional.
“The text, structure, and original public meaning of the Constitution show that Congress does not have the constitutional power to enact this statute,” Leibowitz wrote. “The best reading of the actual statute that underpins this criminal case yields an inescapable conclusion: 18 U.S.C. § 611 is a voter qualification statute, and the Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate voter qualifications for federal elections.”
The judge continued: “Except for very specific constitutional provisions (that cannot support this statute; we will go through them), Congress has no power to say who can vote or who cannot vote in federal elections—that foundational power is reserved for the States, and limits Congress.”
Leibowitz emphasized that his decision does not establish a right for noncitizens to vote or prevent Florida from prohibiting and prosecuting such voting under state law. Florida, like other states, requires U.S. citizenship for voting in federal elections. “Can the State of Florida prohibit and punish the exact conduct Defendant Cox allegedly engaged in here?” Leibowitz wrote. “This has already been decided elsewhere and is not addressed here: Florida can and does.”
The dispute instead centered on whether Congress itself had constitutional authority to make Cox’s alleged conduct a federal crime.
Cox was charged in October 2025 with illegally casting a ballot in Florida during the 2020 federal election. According to government court filings summarized by Reuters, Cox entered the United States from Jamaica as a tourist in 1999 and remained after her visa expired the following year. Prosecutors alleged that she later used a fraudulent U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to obtain a Florida driver’s license and register to vote in 2012. Records indicated that she voted in federal elections between 2012 and 2020, although prosecutors could charge only the 2020 vote because the earlier conduct fell outside the applicable statute of limitations.
The federal law at issue states that, subject to limited exceptions, “it shall be unlawful for any alien to vote” in an election held wholly or partly to elect federal candidates. A violation can carry a fine and up to one year in prison. The current federal statute applies to elections involving the presidency, vice presidency, presidential electors, members of Congress, the District of Columbia delegate and Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner.
Cox’s defense challenged the statute at a more fundamental level, arguing that the Elections Clause gives Congress authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections but does not empower the federal government to determine which people are qualified to vote.
Leibowitz agreed.
“The States have sole authority to set voter qualifications,” he wrote. “In federal congressional elections, voters’ qualifications are a function of each State’s rules. And in Presidential elections, the States have the prerogative to establish whatever rules for selecting electors they see fit.”
Article I of the Constitution provides that electors choosing members of the U.S. House “shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Similar language applies to the direct election of senators under the 17th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has previously recognized a distinction between voter qualifications and Congress’ authority to regulate election procedures. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the court stated that the Constitution leaves states with authority to establish voter qualifications while giving Congress substantial authority over the mechanics of federal elections. The precise reach of those competing powers was central to the Cox case.
Government lawyers urged Leibowitz to reject Cox’s constitutional argument. In a Justice Department filing, prosecutors argued that state governments have primary responsibility for administering elections but that the Constitution also gives the federal government authority to safeguard federal elections.
“State governments have initial and principal authority for administering elections within their jurisdictions, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution provides that the federal government maintains authority over elections, including guarding the safety and integrity of congressional elections,” government lawyers wrote.
Prosecutors also relied on Smiley v. Holm, a 1932 Supreme Court case addressing Congress’ Elections Clause authority. They argued that Supreme Court precedent recognizes congressional power to supplement state election regulations and provide penalties for violations.
In the government’s view, the statute could also be justified by Congress’ federal responsibilities involving immigration, foreign affairs and protection against foreign participation in American elections.
“Foreign interference in elections is clearly within the purview of Congress,” federal prosecutors wrote, according to Reuters.
Leibowitz nevertheless concluded that Section 611 operates as a voter-qualification law rather than merely a regulation governing the mechanics of an election.
That distinction proved decisive. His opinion reasoned that when Congress criminalized voting by a particular class of people based on their eligibility to participate, it was effectively determining who could and could not vote — a power the judge concluded the Constitution had not given Congress in these circumstances.
The ruling applies specifically to Cox and does not erase Section 611 nationwide. Other federal district judges remain free to reach a different conclusion, and an appellate court could overturn Leibowitz’s ruling if the Justice Department challenges it.
That possibility is increasingly significant because the Justice Department has stepped up prosecutions under the statute. Reuters reported that federal prosecutors have charged at least 60 people with noncitizen voting since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, with approximately 45 cases still pending nationally. At least four other defendants have raised constitutional arguments similar to Cox’s, meaning Leibowitz’s reasoning could soon be tested elsewhere.
The Justice Department had not publicly responded to the ruling as of Thursday evening, according to Reuters.
Cox’s attorney, Bruce Udolf, welcomed the dismissal and urged federal authorities not to pursue additional action against his client.
“This is a situation that cries out for discretion by government officials and they’d be well-advised to walk away from this without further reprisal against her,” Udolf said, citing Cox’s declining health.
The ruling comes as the administration has intensified federal efforts to identify and prosecute noncitizens who register or vote. Those enforcement initiatives have become part of a broader national debate over election administration, voter eligibility and the division of authority between state and federal governments ahead of the November midterm elections.
Leibowitz’s decision leaves intact states’ ability to require citizenship and punish people who vote despite being ineligible. What it challenges is the federal government’s independent authority to criminalize the same conduct through Section 611.
That constitutional distinction could now become the focus of an appellate fight. Unless the ruling is reversed, the federal charge against Cox is dismissed, while the broader validity of the nationwide federal prohibition remains unsettled outside her case.
Original article
Comments