For comparison, look at the situations with felons voting. In some states, they can, even while serving a sentence. In some, they can’t vote from prison, but as soon as their term is up, they automatically can again. In other states, they can go through a process to get their voting rights back (and what that process is varies), and in yet others, they’re barred from voting for life. This variation occurs because it’s the state’s decision who gets to vote, and different states have chosen differently.
Now, there are some limitations on the states: They can’t make voting eligibility dependent on race or sex, for instance, nor can they require that a voter be above some age limit greater than 18 (though a state could allow under-18s to vote, even though currently none do). But those limitations depended on Constitutional amendments, and there’s nothing in the Constitution saying that states aren’t allowed to let non-citizens vote.
Exactly. It was black Democratic legislators who fought against same sex marriage in Illinois. Also, a lot of those black and Hispanic voters in California in 2008 happily voted for Prop. 8 while also happily voting for Obama.
Yes. We currently do this to 1) non-citizens, 2) criminals (varies by state), and 3) children. (And, I guess, 4) people who can’t fulfill voting registration or ID requirements, etc.) In all these cases, we are saying that we don’t want them to vote.
Be honest about what this means, and why you think anti-democratic (small-d) restrictions make sense. This is fairly easy to justify with children – well, young children, anyway. I can also see a case to be made with criminals, if I squint a lot and ignore how many of them are semi-permanently disenfranchised in some states.
But for non-citizen parents electing only the school board that oversees their kids’ schools? I don’t see a great argument. Provide one, by all means – besides “slippery slope,” which could be used to justify any tightening of voting rights. (“If we allow high school graduates to vote, we might eventually allow high school dropouts to vote!”)
I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m assuming bad faith on the part of the OP, but this was a poorly presented question and has a misleading title.
If I may coin a phrase, no taxation without representation. If someone is living in a school district and paying local taxes toward schools, it is profoundly anti-democratic to deny them some say in how their tax dollars are spent.
Given the choice between:
a) letting non-citizens vote in elections; and
b) letting non-US-residents come to US messageboards and attempt to influence US politics,
I think the first one is much more conducive to a vibrant democracy.
Perhaps this is the time and place to also argue that children should be allowed to vote at any age at which they can physically do so. Why not? Is it thought they will be unduly influenced by those who have power over them? How is that any different than an employer telling you to vote their way because otherwise they’ll have to lay people off? That they aren’t mature enough to understand the issues at stake? I think it’s clear that plenty of adults aren’t either. And certainly there’s nothing magical that happens on one’s 18th birthday.
If any parents have a notion that their eye-rolling teenage kids are going to vote the way their clueless parents do, they may be in for a surprise.
In the case of Brexit, I think votes should have been weighted by remaining years of life expectancy, i.e. the time that any citizen will have to live with the consequences. On that basis, given the demographics, the U.K. would have voted to remain in Europe by a clear margin.
Why does it matter? I thought the US was all special and shit, which is why arguments for Universal Health Care have no effect despite success in other countries.
While in Australia we don’t vote for School Boards, we do vote for three tiers of government: Local Councillors, State and Federal Members of Parliament.
Non-citizens can certainly vote in Local Council elections, provided they are ratepayers in that municipality.
For State and Federal elections only Aus citizens may vote, UNLESS they are a British Subject living here as permanent residents AND were enrolled to vote prior to 1984.
I will consider changing the title, (although the scare tactics were pretty clearly debunked in the first few responses), but this is a legitimate topic of discussion as I already noted and I see no reason to shut it down despite its obvious well poisoning and partisan tilt. We can and have gotten past that and good information has been exchanged.
As noted in the linked Wikipedia article, not only have some other countries allowed it, but it has been permitted in the U.S. at different times and in different states. This does not make it a good idea, but it removes it from the realm of the alarmist partisan reactions promoted by the article linked in the OP.
It may surprise you to learn that in the UK, if you are a registered resident, and a national of one of 50 or so Commonwealth countries, or the Republic of Ireland, then you can not only vote in national general elections, you can also stand for Parliament, and become Prime Minister.
In local government elections, you don’t even have to be a Commonwealth citizen, you just have to be a resident and member of the EU.
What’s more, just being a British Citizen doesn’t give you the right to vote - you also have to have been a resident in the last 15 years. So you can’t emigrate to Australia, and then think you can still have a say in the British Government 15 years later.
It comes down to the fact that the average Mexican has a little more pigmentation than the average Caucasian and right wing Americans despise the notion that blacks and browns should be able to vote.
I’ve seen the “California is letting non-citizens vote! This proves that Democrats want to give the vote to illegals!” argument batted around on Facebook by the various right-wing (and pseudo-right-wing) sites. Inevitably, when it is pointed out (as has been done here) that it is specific to school board elections only and only applies to legal immigrants, who are paying taxes and are likely to have children in those schools, the argument shifts to the slippery slope one…which we have also thoroughly debunked.
I have every confidence that our arguments will affect the future posts of the OP not one jot.