In California, the state has recently enabled illegal foreigners to participate in elections, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the voting process. This change follows a trend where local elections have already allowed noncitizens to vote, notably in San Francisco and Oakland. Despite arguments from supporters that these measures give immigrant families a voice in educational decisions, opponents firmly assert that voting should remain a privilege exclusive to citizens.
In smaller local elections, illegal aliens are currently permitted to vote. But when it comes to larger statewide elections, such as the gubernatorial race, the state employs an honor system to verify citizenship through affidavits. Governor Newsom’s recent enactment of legislation permitting illegal aliens to oversee elections intensifies these debates. Proponents argue this approach enhances election security, yet many view it as undermining foundational democratic principles by suggesting that individuals who are not citizens can influence electoral outcomes.
San Francisco blazed the trail in 2018 by allowing noncitizens, including those without legal status, to engage in local school board elections. This initiative, rooted in a 2016 voter referendum, requires registrants to be parents or caregivers of children under 19. Supporters claim it recognizes the substantial number of foreign-born parents within the district. However, critics counter that such provisions dilute the exclusive right of citizens to vote.
To discourage unauthorized participation, newly eligible voters must fill out separate registration forms. These forms caution that the provided information could be shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), potentially placing many at risk of deportation. Although similar policies exist across various municipalities, the core right to vote remains restricted to citizens across the United States, setting up a fundamental clash between these local laws and national standards.
Currently, in California, San Francisco stands as the lone city with provisions allowing noncitizens to vote in limited local elections. Proposition N, passed in 2016 with a majority vote, only permits noncitizen parents or caregivers within the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in school board elections. Meanwhile, Oakland proposed a similar measure in 2022, but its implementation has faced challenges. In contrast, Santa Ana voters defeated a measure that aimed to expand voting rights to noncitizens in broader municipal elections.
Critical aspects of San Francisco’s law emphasize that the noncitizen voting process is strictly limited to school board elections, and registrants must complete a distinct registration procedure. Their details are maintained separately, with no overlap on state or federal voter rolls.
Under California law, voting eligibility for presidential and gubernatorial elections is contingent solely on citizenship. However, the existing system operates largely on trust, requiring individuals to sign affidavits asserting their citizenship. A report from a Santa Barbara County grand jury validated that no requirement exists for submitting proof of citizenship during registration. Specifically, the foreman, Andrew Brown, stated, “We uncovered that there’s no requirement to provide proof of citizenship. You just sign off that line in the ballot that informs you of the potentials of felony perjury if you’re not eligible to register to vote.”
While California does perform some checks, such as confirming ID numbers with DMV records or validating Social Security Numbers against governmental databases, it does not verify actual citizenship status. This self-declaration method, indeed an honor system, allows voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens, yet no checks exist to ensure these declarations are truthful.
Legislative movements such as AB 25 seek to change this by requiring proof of citizenship for registration, yet these proposals have faced fierce opposition. Detractors label such initiatives as extreme, calling them “Hitler” and “fascist.” Amidst this, the ongoing trend suggests that, given noncitizens already participate in elections, allowing them to supervise these voting processes could follow.
The recent Assembly Bill 930, which Governor Newsom signed into law, updates state election procedures and includes significant alterations, most notably extending mail-in ballot counting deadlines. However, critics are wary, particularly of a change that replaces the term “four voters of the county” with “four individuals,” interpreting this as enabling noncitizens to take roles within recount boards.
Opponents, including state lawmakers, argue that this new phrasing opens a pathway for illegal aliens to oversee election recounts, directly challenging the integrity of the electoral process. Conversely, state officials and the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials maintain that federal law prevents unauthorized individuals from holding such positions. They insist that only U.S. citizens authorized to work may fill these roles, as verified through the I-9 employment checks.
In summary, California’s shifting landscape around voting rights raises critical questions about voter integrity and citizenship requirements. While advocates tout greater inclusivity and representation, the potential for undermining the sanctity of the vote remains a substantial concern amidst these evolving legal terrains. The discussion has ignited a broader dialogue about the fundamental principles governing American democracy and who qualifies for its most cherished rights.
"*" indicates required fields
