Click on right here for an entire record of our election suggestions.
Proposals in Oakland and San Jose to permit folks with out citizenship to vote in native elections are unhealthy coverage, probably legally flawed and politically misguided.
One of many key privileges of citizenship is the appropriate to vote. Whereas we as a nation ought to cherish our immigrant heritage, we must always honor the sanctity of our elections by limiting voting to those that have cleared the hurdle of citizenship.
The 26th Modification of the U.S. Structure extends the appropriate to vote in federal elections to “residents of america, who’re eighteen years of age or older.” And federal legislation particularly forbids non-citizens from voting in federal elections.
For native elections, Article II, Part 2 of the California Structure states, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident on this State might vote.” Not a U.S. resident, a citizen.
Citing the California Structure and state legal guidelines, a Superior Courtroom decide in San Francisco final month threw out that metropolis’s ordinance permitting school-age kids’s non-citizen dad and mom, together with undocumented immigrants and authorized residents, to vote in class board elections.
“This isn’t a tough or shut query,” wrote Decide Richard Ulmer in a follow-up order through which he refused to remain his determination whereas town appeals it. Whether or not the next court docket agrees stays to be seen.
Oakland Measure S
In the meantime, the Oakland Metropolis Council is asking voters to let it equally prolong voting rights in class board elections to non-citizens who’re metropolis residents and who’re dad and mom, authorized guardians or authorized caregivers of “a qualifying minor baby.”
Measure S faces a authorized problem this coming week looking for to drag it off the Nov. 8 poll. As problematic because the measure is, it will be untimely to take away it from the poll whereas the authorized combat over the same San Francisco measure is pending earlier than an appellate court docket. If Measure S does stay on the poll, voters ought to reject it.
For Oakland voters, this shouldn’t be solely a problem of whether or not non-citizen voting is legally permissible below the state Structure. Even when the courts allow it in future rulings this fall, there’s additionally a query of whether or not non-citizen voting is sweet coverage. It’s not.
We have to replace our immigration legal guidelines to offer a faster pathway to citizenship for much extra folks. However that’s a separate debate, and the failure to resolve it shouldn’t be a purpose to open our elections to anybody dwelling right here regardless of their authorized standing.
Past that, the Oakland measure is replete with different troubling particulars. For instance, what constitutes a qualifying minor baby could be left to the Metropolis Council to determine. And the rationale for extending the vote to solely dad and mom, however not others with out kids, is unnecessary; for citizen voters, we don’t prohibit choices about choosing training leaders solely to oldsters.
San Jose effort
In San Jose, the Metropolis Council ought to put the brakes on efforts there that will prolong voting rights to non-citizens. Precisely what council members Magdalena Carrasco and Sylvia Arenas will suggest to place earlier than voters in a future election is undetermined, nevertheless it appears they wish to open metropolis elections, fairly than faculty board elections, to non-citizens.
The identical basic coverage and state constitutional questions would apply. The authorized uncertainty has prompted Mayor Sam Liccardo to correctly suggest suspending the dialogue till the courts kind out what’s lawful.
The difficulty in all three cities can be a political landmine. These measures are being proposed in left-leaning cities as a result of progressives count on they may do properly on the polls with non-citizen voters. However at a time when the legitimacy of elections is below assault, and fear-mongering about immigrants appears to be on the upswing, these misguided “Left Coast” makes an attempt to broaden voting rights are positive to offer fodder for right-wing propagandists.
To make sure, the difficulty isn’t distinctive to California. On June 27, a New York decide, citing obstacles in that state’s structure, struck down a New York Metropolis legislation handed in November that will have let noncitizens who’re everlasting authorized residents or approved to work within the nation vote in municipal elections.
San Francisco case
A month later, Ulmer overturned San Francisco’s ordinance, which town’s voters had approved in 2016. Town had argued that the California Structure allowed enlargement of voting rights as a result of it says that U.S. residents 18 years of age “might” vote, suggesting that non-citizens “may” vote.
