Non-citizen local voting

Why not?

A few cities in the US have proposed opening their local elections to resident non-citizens. Not unexpectedly, there has been a loud outcry from the right. Perhaps those crying out are unaware how traditional was non-citizen voting through much of the nineteenth century, and not just in local elections. White, male, 21, was usually enough. It was thought natural that taxpaying, apparently permanent, members of the community should vote. “No taxation without representation.” (That a newcomer from Sweden was more likely to be permitted to vote than a 13 ^th, 14^th, 15^th Amendment citizen is a scandal, but a fact.)

I concede that the enumeration reduction for rebellion provision of the 14^th Amendment’s 2^nd Section contemplates that the voters in federal elections and for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government would be citizens. The 19^th and 26^th Amendments had the effect of enfranchising female citizens and 18- through 20-year-old citizens respectively, and the 24^th protects citizens against poll taxes.

The argument from all this that the Constitution restricts voting rights to citizens is not conclusive. Strictly, the 26^th Amendment, because stated in the negative, is consistent with a regime in which 21-year-old citizens and non-citizens vote, 18-year-old citizens vote, but 18-year-old non-citizens are barred, and similarly for the 19^th Amendment, which is consistent with permitting female non-citizens to vote but not male non-citizens. The framers of these amendments may well have been assuming that only citizens would be voting, but they do not withdraw from the states the power to enfranchise non-citizens. (Strict construction!  States’ rights!) 

New York City legislation permitting non-citizens to vote in city elections is currently being challenged in court “[W]e shouldn’t be allowing citizens of other nations to vote in our elections, full stop.” (New York Republican Party Chairman Nick Langworthy, a plaintiff in the suit.) Actually, Mr. Langworthy may not really want to stop quite so fully. Citizens of other nations had long been voting in national as well as state and local elections in New York and all over the United States. If he wants to ensure that the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk, Sandra Bullock, and Angelina Jolie will never cast a vote in New York because they are citizens of other countries, he had better talk to his friends in Washington about the longstanding national policy respecting dual citizenship.

That voters be educated is a good thing and the studying for the US citizenship test is a small step in the right direction. I am not sure how crucial it is that voters know the number of amendments to the Constitution (27), a number which I bet fewer than 3% of citizens know, a percentage only slightly improved if we restrict survey to lawyers, or indeed judges. I am not sure why a test question is to be answered that the economic system of the US is “capitalist or free market.” The second disjunct isn’t even true. Still, questionable as is the selection of the questions and appropriate answers, it is on balance positive to have potential voters taking the test. I would be happy to see some small tax break given to any voter who would pass the test, say once in five years. Yet, most current voters would fail the test, and there is pretty much nothing that the candidates learn in studying for the test that would make them more knowledgeable on the issues facing school board voters.

Tying the right to vote, locally as well as nationally, to citizenship might motivate long term resident aliens to become citizens. I am sure it is some incentive, but I doubt that it is, statistically speaking, a very powerful one. Eliminating risk of deportation, getting beyond the restrictions of a green card, and obtaining a United States passport, among other considerations, are surely weightier. I also have to wonder if Langworthy and the Republican Party of New York would want to incentivize resident aliens to become citizens and so to vote not only in New York City but in state and national elections.

There is, of course, the mystique of the nation into which one is initiated with citizenship. The metaphysics of national identity and of the status of the individual in that identity, especially when blended with the idea of national exceptionalism, can get creepy pretty fast. “The votes of the citizens must not be diluted by those who are not one with us.” For a school board election?  For the subway toll? For yes or no on bike paths? Give me a break!