I was listening to this the other day, and I was struck by the mention of non-citizens once being able to vote. If I understood correctly, the 14th Amendment changed our concept of citizenship and made it the basis for whether or not someone could vote. Before that, land ownership was the standard, and therefore, it stands that non-citizens (who owned land) voted in US elections.
Can anyone elaborate on this?
States control suffrage requirements, both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment–although the Constitution limits their options with respect to age, gender, and race, among other things. In the late Nineteenth Century, it was fairly common for states to enfranchise non-citizens, because big-city machines liked to turn out the immigrant vote.
A state could still do this today if it wished, but none wish to as the political culture has changed. However, a few cities (using home rule power granted by their states) have enfranchised non-citizens in local and school board elections.
Not all countries today require citizenship to vote. When I lived in New Zealand in the 1980s, I was surprised to find that I as a US citizen was allowed to vote. I voted in both the US (absentee ballot) and New Zealand elections in 1984.
Interestingly, there was a proposal on the San Francisco city ballot yesterday to allow non-citizens to vote in school board elections. Measure D. It was defeated 45% to 54%.
This is a website which supports letting non-citizens vote, so it does, of course, have some bias, but on it, it also talks about places in the US where non-citizens are or were allowed to vote for some offices, even sometimes federal offices.
I’d definitely support a measure allowing legal residents to vote. I’m a legal permanent resident, i pay income taxes and social security and every other tax that American citizens pay. I am also, in the everyday course of my life, affected by American and California law in basically exactly the same way that an American citizen is.
The revolutionary part of the 14th amendment wasn’t that it linked voting to citizenship. It was that it defined citizenship on the federal level. Before the Civil War, there was no constitutional provision or federal law that defined citizenship–mainly to avoid the explosive political issue whether slaves or free blacks were citizens. Each state defined what citizenship was and the federal government pretty much recognized their decisions. On those occasions where people were legally citizens in one state but not another (again mostly blacks) the issue quickly bogged down into a legal morass. In the infamous Dred Scott case of 1857, the Chief Justice’s opinions were that blacks could not be citizens in any circumstances. Other justices (even those who voted with the Chief Justice) didn’t hold this opinion so it wasn’t clear if this could be used as a guidline. By stating citizenship is by birth or naturalization the 14th amendment solved this problem.
I don’t much about the history of citizens non-voting. But I do know citizenship didn’t automatically give you the right of suffrage. Otherwise why would constitutional amendments need to be passed to eliminate racial and gender discrimination in suffrage? Plus I’m pretty sure all the states had eliminated property qualifications during the era of Jacksonian democracy in the 1830s.
The Wikipedia explains it pretty well
It’s worth pointing out that they are human beings who live in this country, so they do have an interest in what goes on.
As the husband of a legal permanent resident (who is kind of the bread winner of the family), I can sympathize. It’s not really anything that I’ve thought of much until now, but it makes sense.
Now, given the current political environment, I don’t think it will ever happen. Not anytime soon…
The current political environment doesn’t have anything against non-illegal immigrants. (I have me one of them, too.)
Certainly it does. It denies them the vote.
Agreed, mostly. What I meant is more along the lines of the fact that illegal immigration is such a charged subject* that no politician would make voting for permanent residents a part of his or her platform.
I’m a legal permanent resident. I have mixed feelings about not being able to vote. On one hand as posters have already mentioned I pay the same taxes, and am affected in the same way, as US citizens who live in California. From the perspective of having a say where it really counts it makes far more sense for me to vote in American elections then South African elections.
On the other hand, permanent residency is really a temporary state if you want it to be - the disenfranchisement is somewhat mitigated by being able to apply for citizenship in three to five years. In addition, the idea of a package of rights and responsibilities is appealing: voting comes with jury duty, an oath of allegiance, ensuring you have basic understanding of the system of government, etc. In essence permanent residency is just trying out a new place, citizenship is committing to the whole America package. As long as there is a clear path to citizenship for legal permanent residents I’m okay with this. If there wasn’t it would be more like a second class citizen situation and I’d be much less comfortable with it.
However, the more local you go the more I feel non-citizens should vote. The entire package sentiment above applies more at the federal level. When you move down to electing the school board for your kid’s school or the sheriff for your town I think you move closer to day to day practical concerns and further away from lofty ideals, and it makes less sense to disenfranchise legal residents.
I think if one wants to vote in any country’s elections, one should be a citizen of that country, no exceptions.
Why haven’t you become a citizen? That is, is it because of whatever procedural obstacles stand between you and citizenship, or is it your own choice?
Nitpicking maybe but it’s not that you were allowed to vote “as a US citizen”. You were allowed to vote because you were a NZ permanent resident. Other citizenships or residencies are irrelevant to NZ.
I remember a few years ago I tuned into a radio talk station and the host was carrying on about how disgustingly liberal and unpatriotic Amherst, MA is because “they allow non-citizens to vote”. I don’t know the details but I suspect he was talking about the local elections.
As a kiwi living in the US as a permanent resident, I can’t vote anywhere. I can only vote in NZ if I’ve visited in the last so many years. Something like two or three years.
In the UK, citizens of other Commonwealth countries have the vote in general (i.e., Parliamentary) elections, and so do citizens of Ireland. It’s based on the old post-imperial idea that the Commonwealth countries are tied to each other by a special kind of relationship which is not that of countries foreign to each other, but not a domestic relationship either.
In addition, in the UK, as in any other EU country, citizens of other EU member states have the vote in local (i.e., city and county council) and European Parliament elections. This is governed by EU law, however, which is why in the UK, Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote in general elections but not local or European elections, whereas for non-Commonwealth EU citizens it’s the other way round. Can lead to some confusion, especially if several elections are held on the same day.
Because the law requires a wait of a certain number of years between gaining permanent residency and gaining citizenship. The length of time depends on a couple of things; in my case, how long i’ve been married was a key determinant. I got my green card just over a year ago, and will be eligible to apply for citizenship in just under two years.
And, to be quite honest, about the only reason i can currently think of to become a citizen is the issue of voting, serving on juries, etc. I have no particular investment in nationalistic sentiments, either with respect to my country of birth, the country where i grew up, or my current country of residence. I love living in the US, many of my best friends are Americans, and i think that there is much to admire about this nation and its people. At the same time, i’m also very critical of much of what goes on in this country, and of the actions of the American government. Without wanting too sound to full of myself, i already know more about the history and political system of the United States than at least 90 percent of Americans, and pay closer attention to American current events than most citizens as well.
And none of that will change just because i pass a simple test and repeat a rather pointless oath. I’m as invested in the United States now as i ever would be after a citizenship ceremony. I pay taxes, i obey the law, and i think i would be at least as capable as the average American of casting an intelligent vote and serving on a jury.
Just MHO.
:smack:
Transposed “too” and “to.” Maybe i’m not so smart after all.