Granting Immigrants the Right to Vote
Forrest Hill
May 18, 2006
After listening to President Bush’s speech on immigration last Monday night, I have come to the irrevocable conclusion that it is time we allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.
Immigrant workers buy products, pay taxes, work hard, serve in our armed forces, are members of the community, and assume other responsibilities of local citizenship. They should have a say in local government.
Non-citizens with children also have a vested interest in their city's schools. They need to have a voice in how the schools are run and in how policy is set.
As Secretary of State, I will advocate for a change in the California Constitution to give cities the right to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Today, it is almost a necessity in many cities that immigrants are granted the right to vote. You can't have a growing number of residents in urban jurisdictions that are not part of the body politic. It is important to have everyone under the same decision making tent.
The implementation of immigrant voting will enable California cities to join a growing number of cities across the country, including Chicago, Cambridge, and Takoma Park, which have adopted similar laws in recent years.
Immigrants have historically been allowed to vote
From 1776 until 1926, non-citizen voting was widespread in the United States. During that time 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state, and even federal elections.
The US Constitution still gives states and municipalities the right to decide who is eligible to vote, however, many state constitutions (including California) have repealed that right.
In 2004, San Francisco Green Party Supervisor Matt Gonzalez put an initiative on the ballot to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections. Whiel the initial failed, it but did received 49% of the vote. If it had passed, it would have empowered the parents of one-third of the children in San Francisco public schools to have a saying in how their children are educated.
Today similar initiatives are being considered in several cities in California, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino.
With the current debate over immigration the time has come to seriously reconsider the question of non-citizen voting. History is on the side of those of us who support the right of all members of our community to have a voice in government.
Immigrant voting provides pathway to citizenship
The most common objection to non-citizen voting is that immigrants should only obtain voting rights after becoming citizens. Otherwise you create the possibility of people voting who have no stake in society.
Historically, most immigrants that come to America intend to become citizens. What has changed in recent years is that the naturalization process has become increasingly cumbersome, the application backlog has increased to about 5 years (since September 11, 2001), and the cost of naturalization has skyrocketed.
During the time it takes to become a citizen, immigrants miss out on an important opportunity to contribute to their new country. Meanwhile, their children miss the chance to learn by the example of seeing their parents vote.
While immigrant voting is not a substitute for citizenship, it promotes civic education and political literacy among newcomers, and provides a clear pathway to citizenship.
Today, the practice of non-citizen voting has spread to more than 20 countries around the world, including to communities in New Zealand, Chile, Israel, and all Member States of the European Union.
Non-citizen voting caught on in Europe in the 1960s precisely because the growing number of immigrant workers prompted nations to think about ways to integrate mobile populations into their new communities.
If these countries with their large immigrant populations are able to accommodate non-citizen voting, there is no reason we cannot implement the same enlightened policy here.
Conclusion
The practice of non-citizen voting is as old as the United States. A growing number of American cities now allow all legal residents to participate in elections. Nonetheless, there remain significant tensions between those who support non-citizen voting and those who question its legitimacy and meaning.
The many initiatives being debated across the United States will build the body of knowledge on non-citizen voting. With millions of votes potentially hanging in the balance, the results of this debate will shape US communities and immigration policies long into the future.
Immigrant workers buy products, pay taxes, work hard, serve in our armed forces, are members of the community, and assume other responsibilities of local citizenship. They should have a say in local government.
Non-citizens with children also have a vested interest in their city's schools. They need to have a voice in how the schools are run and in how policy is set.
As Secretary of State, I will advocate for a change in the California Constitution to give cities the right to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Today, it is almost a necessity in many cities that immigrants are granted the right to vote. You can't have a growing number of residents in urban jurisdictions that are not part of the body politic. It is important to have everyone under the same decision making tent.
The implementation of immigrant voting will enable California cities to join a growing number of cities across the country, including Chicago, Cambridge, and Takoma Park, which have adopted similar laws in recent years.
Immigrants have historically been allowed to vote
From 1776 until 1926, non-citizen voting was widespread in the United States. During that time 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state, and even federal elections.
The US Constitution still gives states and municipalities the right to decide who is eligible to vote, however, many state constitutions (including California) have repealed that right.
In 2004, San Francisco Green Party Supervisor Matt Gonzalez put an initiative on the ballot to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections. Whiel the initial failed, it but did received 49% of the vote. If it had passed, it would have empowered the parents of one-third of the children in San Francisco public schools to have a saying in how their children are educated.
Today similar initiatives are being considered in several cities in California, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino.
With the current debate over immigration the time has come to seriously reconsider the question of non-citizen voting. History is on the side of those of us who support the right of all members of our community to have a voice in government.
Immigrant voting provides pathway to citizenship
The most common objection to non-citizen voting is that immigrants should only obtain voting rights after becoming citizens. Otherwise you create the possibility of people voting who have no stake in society.
Historically, most immigrants that come to America intend to become citizens. What has changed in recent years is that the naturalization process has become increasingly cumbersome, the application backlog has increased to about 5 years (since September 11, 2001), and the cost of naturalization has skyrocketed.
During the time it takes to become a citizen, immigrants miss out on an important opportunity to contribute to their new country. Meanwhile, their children miss the chance to learn by the example of seeing their parents vote.
While immigrant voting is not a substitute for citizenship, it promotes civic education and political literacy among newcomers, and provides a clear pathway to citizenship.
Today, the practice of non-citizen voting has spread to more than 20 countries around the world, including to communities in New Zealand, Chile, Israel, and all Member States of the European Union.
Non-citizen voting caught on in Europe in the 1960s precisely because the growing number of immigrant workers prompted nations to think about ways to integrate mobile populations into their new communities.
If these countries with their large immigrant populations are able to accommodate non-citizen voting, there is no reason we cannot implement the same enlightened policy here.
Conclusion
The practice of non-citizen voting is as old as the United States. A growing number of American cities now allow all legal residents to participate in elections. Nonetheless, there remain significant tensions between those who support non-citizen voting and those who question its legitimacy and meaning.
The many initiatives being debated across the United States will build the body of knowledge on non-citizen voting. With millions of votes potentially hanging in the balance, the results of this debate will shape US communities and immigration policies long into the future.
Print
Email
