(original article: Conservative states explicitly ban non-citizen voting – from the Tide: Student Newspaper of Richard Montgomery High School of Rockville, Maryland, December 3, 2024)

TL:DR

Local Election Exceptions:

• Non-citizens can vote in some local elections (e.g., San Francisco school board elections), and many states’ constitutions leave the door open for other municipalities to legally allow it
• Local exceptions have logistical and financial consequences, as seen with Santa Ana’s Measure DD, which raised concerns about added costs and complexities to voter roll maintenance.

Amendment Process:

• State constitutional amendments banning non-citizen voting reflect the will of voters. While debated, they aim to preserve electoral integrity by closing loopholes.

Claims of Voter Fraud and Xenophobia:

• These amendments are not about false fraud claims or prejudice but ensuring only citizens—whether by birth or naturalization—vote.
• Americans for Citizen Voting opposes cultural bias and encourages immigrants to pursue naturalization.

Immigrants and Naturalized Citizens:

• Immigrants enrich the U.S., but voting rights are reserved for citizens, as in other countries like Canada and Mexico.
• Naturalization is intentionally rigorous to ensure commitment and understanding of civic responsibilities.

Dear Rebecca Morrison and Sophie Li,

We thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the topic of non-citizen voting and the recent constitutional amendments in various states. Addressing such pivotal matters reflects a heartening commitment to understanding the complexities of our democratic processes and it brings us great hope for the future to see this manner of effort and attention in people at your age.

We have read your article and both understand and sympathize with your perspectives. We hope that you will grant us the same space in return.

Clarifying the Scope of Local Election Exceptions

You are correct in stating that existing laws (both in the U.S. Constitution and a combination of statutes and constitutional amendments in each state) prohibit non-citizens from voting in state government and federal government elections. You are also correct in mentioning that those protections are not automatically extended to local and municipal elections (you may be aware how infrequently mainstream media notes the local/municipal exception, often harming their reports’ credibility from the start).

It’s important to note that this exception is significant because local government has every potential to directly affect the lives of its residents, perhaps even more acutely than state or federal laws. That very specific exception is our sole focus at Americans for Citizen Voting. In certain jurisdictions, noncitizens have been granted the legal right to vote in local elections, such as school board or municipal contests. For instance, cities like San Francisco have allowed non-citizen parents to vote in school board elections. These local exceptions represent meaningful participation opportunities for non-citizens in specific communities but, while it may seem like the “right thing to do,” municipal voting is not the only pathway for noncitizen parents to meaningfully participate in their children’s education and these exceptions are certainly not without their negative effects or consequences.

You may know that the city of Santa Ana, California this past November voted down Measure DD, which is a prime example of the local exceptions that can and do exist; amid the arguments voiced against the measure was that hefty additional costs would exist in the writing, printing, and distribution of the specialized ballots that noncitizens would use. No plans were mentioned or submitted for how Santa Ana would manage that additional cost and, as is the case with local governments when new costs arise, the likely methods of paying this additional expense would be to raise taxes and/or decrease existing costs (often in the form of government employee layoff or cutting of social programs). On top of the hard financial issue, there exists the issue of adding more systemic complications to the already stressed and low-public-trust institution of running elections: no plan of action was presented for how the separate voter rolls would be handled, or which government authority would be responsible for them.

Americans for Citizen Voting supported the legislation in all eight states that placed these amendments in the hands of the voters. State by state, it is an immensely complicated and difficult process to amend a state’s constitution and, whether it originates in state legislature or from a citizen initiative petition, the ultimate decision, without exception, falls to the voters of each state to vote for or against. The perceived merits or faults of these amendments can, and likely will be, argued in perpetuity but the fact of the matter is that the people did vote for them.

Addressing Claims of Voter Fraud and Xenophobia

You assert that the recently passed amendments are intended to reinforce false claims about voter fraud and suggest that they stem from xenophobic sentiments. We certainly are opposed to any manner of voter fraud, and it’s essential to recognize that these amendments are solely intended to close potential loopholes that might legally allow non-citizens to vote, thereby preserving the integrity of the electoral process. We at Americans for Citizen Voting do believe that only American citizens (be they born citizens OR naturalized citizens) should vote in public elections at the local, state, or federal level because our citizens have learned what it means to be an American, understand the many processes within our multi-tiered government, and have taken an oath to support this country. It is possible that a noncitizen may possess that knowledge and spirit, but they haven’t made the critical decision to commit to the United States as a citizen, which we believe the right to vote deserves.

While we do not speak or act in any capacity on the subject of illegal voting, we also do not condone or support any manner of cultural prejudice. On the contrary, we strongly encourage legal residents to enter the naturalization process.

Further, we base our efforts and our messaging solely on the facts and on the law. Had we a mainstream media environment that lived by the same values, perhaps we might not even need to have this discussion.

Distinguishing Between Resident Immigrants and Naturalized Citizens

It cannot be overstated how valuable immigrants’ cultural contributions have been and currently are for the United States. As functional members of our society who work and utilize their income in our economic system, they are also great contributors. You are correct, still, in that you note that the distinction between a legal immigrant or noncitizen resident and a naturalized citizen is a great one (perhaps there are naturalized citizens in your life with whom you can confer on this?), and this distinction is not unique to the United States. In fact, many countries maintain the same or similar policies. For example, both Canada and Mexico explicitly reserve voting rights for their citizens. Were you living, working, and paying both income and sales taxes in Mexico City, you would not have the right to vote in any election in Mexico.

Our own organizational president, Avi McCullah, is a naturalized American citizen and she would be very happy to speak with you more directly to discuss the value and great importance of the naturalization process, particularly as immigrants’ voting rights are concerned. She immigrated at a very young age, proceeding through American schools and becoming an adult, and still found the same educational, economic, and logistical difficulties that you mentioned in your article. We will leave the discussion of her specific journey for you to discuss together, but will address the difficulty of the naturalization process broadly: it is difficult, intentionally so. Fidelity and loyalty to a new country are not developed overnight. It is no easy thing to learn all of the functions of government in that new country and it cannot be done on a whim. We agree that the logistics of earning citizenship could be improved, the number of offices where learning takes place could grow, but we believe that this is a choice to which people should commit, and that commitment should be thoroughly tested along the way. This belief isn’t about keeping people out but ensuring that the people who come in are doing so with the right motivations.

Conclusion

Your dedication to exploring and analyzing these complex issues is, to say the least, very admirable. We hope you agree that a nuanced understanding of the facts, a healthy criticism of what you’re told in the media, and perhaps even a fair understanding of your opponents’ rationale, are crucial for informed, progressive discourse. We encourage you to continue your investigative efforts, considering multiple perspectives to enrich the dialogue surrounding our democratic processes, and we would be happy to have such a discourse with you.