Tag Archives: voting

Noncitizens Vote in Local Elections?

Posted on by
Reply

Santa Ana, CA, has a referendum, Measure DD, that would allow noncitizens to vote for a variety of city offices, including mayor. One argument in favor of that is

noncitizen residents (including longtime green-card holders) pay local taxes and send their children to local schools, they should get a voice in city government. “About 1/4 of Santa Ana residents currently don’t have a say in city elections just because of their immigration status,” proponents argue. “Many have lived here for decades and contribute greatly to the local economy.”

Yeah, and? Nothing is preventing those green-card holders and other city residents present legally from changing their immigration status and working to become citizens. If they don’t care enough to do the work, they don’t need to become citizens, but they also show themselves not to care enough to vote. The work they do on the job and the taxes they pay are nice, but those are benefits and obligations of being here legally, and nothing more.

Another problem with this sort of move—not universally common, but present in the vast majority of such initiatives—is that such franchise-granting efforts make no distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. Those who came here illegally have already shown their disdain for American law, regardless of their claimed motive for coming in illegally, and so are unfit to vote for representatives who will be impacting American law, including local ordinances. That they might work and contribute to the local economy is wholly irrelevant to their intrinsic lawlessness.

Then, too, as the WSJ asks,

[W]hat’s the limiting principle? If noncitizens paying taxes to Santa Ana deserve to vote for mayor, why don’t noncitizens paying taxes to California deserve to vote for Governor?

And on up to include our Federal government.

I’m writing this on Election Day, so I have no idea whether Measure DD will pass. Pass or not, though, my point remains: noncitizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If immigrants want to vote, they need to become citizens. Illegal aliens shouldn’t have the vote under any circumstances; they should be sent back. And: the lack of a limiting principle in such franchise-granting efforts remains and dangerously so.

Progressive-Democratic Party Agenda

Posted on by
Reply

This is what Party has in mind, should they be the winners this fall.

Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris will push for these, among others, even as during this campaign season, she ducks away from interviews even by her friendly press (she hoped a couple weeks ago to reach an interview agreement “by the end of the month.” Keep in mind that even as she runs away from the press–and from the questions of us average Americans, these are the policies and goals she has strongly pushed for during her prior campaign for President and during her current stint as Vice President.

  • retreads of her and President Joe Biden’s policies of the last nearly four years
  • ban on fracking as part of her moves to eliminate our hydrocarbon energy capability
  • Medicare for all
  • open southern border
  • voting by and welfare payments to illegal aliens

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) said what Harris lacks to fortitude or the integrity to say out loud for voters to hear and evaluate:

  • eliminate the Senate filibuster
  • control the Supreme Court with term limits and packing
  • impose federal takeover of elections
  • pass enormous spending and tax-hike legislation
  • additional housing entitlements

Harris’ goals are damaging to our economy and destructive of our American culture, bringing in those millions of illegal aliens with no incentive to assimilate into our culture but having access to our voting booths. Schumer’s goals are damaging to our economy and destructive of our republican democracy, converting us to a popular democracy, a form that has never worked in 2,500 years of attempts.

I’ll Decide

Posted on by
Reply

George Stephanopoulos is at it again. In a recent interview with CNN, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos (nothing incestuous about news personalities interviewing each other instead of actual news makers—oh, wait…), had this to say about questions that should be asked of former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump:

If you can’t pass that fundamental threshold of saying, “yes the last election was not stolen,” two, “I will abide by the results of the next election,” then I think that’s all voters and viewers need to know.

And at that point, unless Stephanopoulus got answers of which he personally approved, he’d terminate the interview.

No. Those are valid questions, certainly. However, this voter and viewer—and average American—will decide for himself what he needs to know. He does not need a news personality to filter his knowledge.

The self-important arrogance of Stephanopoulos is a major reason why it’s not possible to take anything the man produces seriously.

School Choice, Public Schools

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Wednesday Letters section is opposed to Educational Savings Accounts that Texas parents could use to send their children to private schools.

School choice in Texas will benefit no one except those who already pay for private school. Moving to public funding of private schools will also tend to resegregate society. Our state-level elected officials are doing the bidding of billionaires in- and out-of-state who have other agendas than excellence in our public schools.

School choice will greatly benefit the children, especially those in families on Texas’ lower economic rungs, by letting them escape from failing public schools. Nor is it an either-or choice; the one leads to improvements in the other. School choice, from that competition, will greatly benefit those children remaining in public schools.

That success, far from increasing segregation, will contribute to decreasing it. The majority of those kids on the lower rung are from minority families. Being increasing their ability to compete academically, they’ll be better able to compete for jobs, and for promotions once employed, as adults. That more even competition is the stuff of desegregation.

The idea that no one but a few billionaires will benefit is just so much irrational hype.

He concluded with:

Let’s put public funding of private schools to a statewide vote.

We just did. In the Republican primaries and the runoffs in some of those primaries, public funding won very widespread support. We will again soon: school choice will be on the ballot again this November. Those State-level elected officials, elected in the primaries and will be elected in the general election, having campaigned on the matter, are much more likely to do the bidding of those who hired and will hire them—their constituents—than were Texas to maintain the status quo with its politicians in November.

Gerrymandering

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court a few days ago ruled 6-3 that a US House districting map in South Carolina was not an illegal racial gerrymander but was an entirely legitimate political gerrymander and so beyond the reach of courts to intervene in. Political gerrymanders are entirely political matters and the sole province of a State’s legislature, the Court held.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent,

This Court has prohibited race-based gerrymanders for a reason. They divide citizens on racial lines to engineer the results of elections.

I suggest that Kagan has, by mistake, hit upon the larger problem that any gerrymandering creates. Political gerrymandering divides citizens on political lines explicitly to engineer the results of elections. How is that any more acceptable?

The idea of barring racial gerrymanders is to prevent the exclusion of racial minorities in a district from electing government representatives who will represent them.

Yet political gerrymanders, which set districts along purely political party lines, are a legitimate means of excluding political minorities, even major parties in a State’s legislative minority, in a district from electing government representatives who will represent those parties’ members.

How is that in any way different from racial gerrymanders? The group that’s in power is allowed, through gerrymandering, to perpetuate its power by permanently reducing the power of those not in power.

Better to draw House districts—or at least US House districts—as rectangles of substantially equal populations, without regard to race or politics.

The first article of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution includes this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….

Article I, Section 4, of our Constitution is this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Congress has some (not absolute) authority over the States’ political decisions regarding the Regulations for holding elections, and that would seem to include districting rules.

Finally, surely among the privileges of an American citizen is the privilege—the right—to vote. Every voter should be on an equal footing with every other voter rather than some voters, by dint of their inclusion in a particular race or political bent, having political advantage over other voters. Disadvantaged voters most assuredly are seeing their voting privilege abridged.

In fine, either all American citizens are equal under law, or we are not.