The Los Angeles City Council recently voted 10-5 to place a measure on the November ballot that would allow the council to authorize non-citizens to vote in city and school board elections.
“For now, supporters said the plan would focus on immigrants who already have some form of status, including people enrolled in DACA and those with active asylum cases,” reported CBS News
The measure is not without precedent – cities and states like Vermont, San Francisco, and even Washington D.C. have allowed some form of non-citizen voting in local elections and before 1926, most states allowed non-citizens to vote with some even allowing them to vote in federal elections.
Even with these precedents, given current public concerns about election integrity, it’s unsurprising that this measure is causing a stir. Funnily enough, if this measure had been in effect during the June primaries in LA, Spencer Pratt supporters would have had a bit less ammunition to make their unfounded election fraud claims.
According to supporters like Councilmember Soto-Martinez, these people work in LA, they pay their taxes, and contribute to the city in the same ways that a citizen does, so it only makes sense that they would be allowed to have a voice about governance.
Perhaps some of the worry can be mitigated by noting that the measure is not about allowing non-citizens to vote in federal or state elections – they’re only voting about local matters that most affect them.
Opponents of the measure bring up several good points. It could be said that the right to vote is part of what distinguishes citizens from non-citizens. The notion that non-citizens deserve to directly influence our government would also justify allowing them to hold public office, setting us on a slippery slope of justification where, in principle, citizenship should accord no special privileges.
But, again, there’s the counterpoint that non-citizens pay local taxes so there seems to be an argument that it’s only fair that they get a say in local governance matters.
Opponents of the measure may also argue that allowing non-citizens to vote would dilute that right and this measure would do so at the level of governance where a citizen’s vote has the most impact. An individual citizen’s vote in federal and state elections makes little difference to the outcome but our voices have the greatest significance within the comparatively small pool of voters in local elections.
But this argument is largely neutralized if Los Angeles voters think it’s okay to dilute their vote as citizens and vote to allow non-citizens to vote.
Stepping back from these arguments, however, the introduction of the measure does bring up a concern about the judgment exhibited by city council members – including mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, who supported placing the measure on the ballot.
The city has a lot of problems and so it seems like a bad idea on its face to introduce a sweeping electoral overhaul when the city can’t get its basic affairs in order.
The city consistently faces budget deficits, perennial issues like homelessness and can’t even get the basics of municipal services done. The city is rarely repaving roads and streetlight repair is so backlogged that the city asked property owners to approve a 120% increase to their property’s assessment to fund repairs.
All other concerns aside, it seems gratuitous for the council to prioritize expanding who gets to vote when it can’t even provide essential city services.
Even if we were to grant that it is a noble goal to expand voting rights to some non-citizens, the city council appears to have its priorities in the wrong order.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.