Talk:Non-citizen suffrage in the United States

Date linking

According to WP:MOS, generally only complete dates (with specified day, month, and year) should be linked... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the law banning noncitizens from voting in federal elections constitutional?

The US Constitution Article 1 states that (for House elections) the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.. 18 U.S.C. §611 appears to potentially conflict with that. Also, I don't see any Constitutional power for Congress to govern the manner by which states choose their Presidential Electors. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a question I've wondered about myself, particularly in light of the Supreme Court case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. (2013), which reaffirmed Article I's delegation of power to the states to determine voter qualifications. I've actually researched this issue a bit, and from what I can tell, there haven't been any cases (yet) challenging the constitutionality of 18 USC 611 on Article I grounds. It would make an interesting topic for a law review article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I guess we will have to wait for a state to allow noncitizens to vote in state legislative elections. Then there would, presumably, be a test case over the federal prohibition. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also section 4 immediately below in Article I.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 4 gives the states and Congress power to regulate the "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives". The Supreme Court held in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that the power to regulate the "manner" of elections cannot allow states (and, presumably, Congress) to add extra requirements for prospective Congressmen beyond those explicitly specified in the Constitution. Since the Constitution also explicitly states what the qualifications for voters should be, it would seem like a simple application of Thornton that Congress may not add to them. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution doesn't really set voter qualifications itself; it just says that the states can't set voter qualifications that are based on race, sex, age 18+, or failure to pay a poll tax. Other than these exceptions, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 (the "Voter Qualifications Clause") and an equivalent provision in the 17th Amendment allows each state to set voter qualifications for federal elections: "...the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." So U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton isn't necessarily comparable. But you're reasoning isn't far from what the Supreme Court recently said in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.: Congress's power to regulate the "manner" of federal elections does not include the power to set voter qualifications, since the Voter Qualifications Clause/17th Amendment gave such power to the states. Applying that reasoning here, a state could constitutionally require citizenship as a voter qualification, but Congress cannot. That would make 18 U.S.C. § 611 facially unconstitutional. As you suggested though, a test case on that is unlikely until a state allows noncitizens to vote (in federal elections, at least). Interesting stuff! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the US Constitution, Article 2, section 1, clause 2 also be relevant? It is up to the State legislatures to determine how electors are chosen. If a democratic method is used, then there are a few other clauses that take effect about who can vote, such as denying prohibitions due to age, race, sex, religion, and property ownership. Aside from this, there are no other prohibitions to what the States can do. 216.137.244.158 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A law review article has been recently published on this very subject: The Unconstitutionality of the Federal Ban on Noncitizen Voting and Congressionally-Imposed Voter Qualifications –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Law, including the Constitution for the United States of America, is strongly based on English Common Law, which specifically prohibits everyone who is not a citizen from voting. The Constitution doesn't lay out who is allowed to breath air, either. It's such a simple and straightforward issue that it wasn't thought necessary at the time to include it. The only reason the Second Amendment was included was because some people in our new government kept proposing legislation to ban the private ownership, possession (to keep) and carrying (to bear) arms, hence the Second's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Clepsydrae (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Section 1. The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Clearly, and undeniably, the Constitution itself does require all voters in federal elections to be "citizens." In fact, countless official U.S. resources as well as unofficial legal guidelines abound which clearly describe the Requirements to vote in Federal Elections: 1) You must be a U.S. Citizen either by birth or naturalization; 2) You must meet your state's residency requirements; 3) You must be 18 years of age; 4) You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections.Clepsydrae (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

English common law did not prohibit noncitizens from voting; there was no "common law of elections." Many British colonies in America allowed noncitizens to vote before the United States was founded, and many states allowed noncitizens to vote through the 1920s. Moreover, the Fifteenth Amendment may protect only citizens' voting rights, but it doesn't prohibit noncitizens from voting. Before making edits to this article, I recommend becoming more familiar with the history of noncitizen voting in the United States. The sources currently cited in it are good places to start. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Both positions here are defensible and if the current title is non-neutral, it isn't obvious. In move discussions, WP:COMMONAME arguments are the most persuasive and more research might be needed on that. One of the cited references calls this topic 'alien suffrage', though that has an old-fashioned sound. People might consider some Google Books searches to see what term is most used for this concept by scholars. If useful data can be found, a new move discussion is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Right of foreigners to vote in the United States → Non-citizen voting in the United States – Article name has WP:NEU issues. It advances the POV that foreigners have a right to vote in the United States. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast "Immigrant voting" is a moderately more commonly used phrase in association to the "United States" but it has a slightly more narrow meaning. What do you think. GregKaye 01:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment the parent article is Right of foreigners to vote. Should that also be renamed? jnestorius^(talk) 09:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

'Non-citizen voting in the United States' is a totally different topic, it means the non-citizens who vote despite not being legally allowed to vote, an allegation most popular among far right US activists. There is no POV whatsoever in writing that foreigners have a right to vote in the United States as some foreigners did and do have the right to vote in the United States or parts of it. Anyway, as jnestorius wrote, 'the parent article is Right of foreigners to vote'. --Minorities observer (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The article title presumes foreigners have a right to vote. That in an of itself is a POV stance. Non-citizen voting is a neutral term.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

'Non-citizen voting' is not a neutral term as e.g. 'citizen' does not mean 'national' outside the US. Anyway, what's the point to 'discuss' with someone who just copy/paste the same sentence as an 'answer'? --Minorities observer (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the United States, so terms specific to the subject make entire sense. I am not suggesting we use the more divisive terms illegal/undocumented-immigrant/alien. If we are to use a legal term, alien would be the most appropriate, although I am sure it can be argued that the term is not neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title's reference of the word "right" is descriptive, not prescriptive; it does not advance a POV anymore than the article title of Women's suffrage in the United States. To the nominator's implicit contention that foreigners/noncitizens don't have such right in the US, historically they had suffrage in several states, they currently do have suffrage in several municipalities, and there have been contemporary proposals to give them suffrage. These facts are what the article currently discusses, and the current title is an accurate description of that content. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Right of foreigners to vote is presumptive. See Rights;

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

Thus not neutral

Alien suffrage or non-citizen voting is neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not follow from that premise; nothing about the definition of the word "right" makes it a presumptive term. Foreigners have had, and do have, the right to vote in many areas of the United States. And you are aware that "suffrage" is a synonym for "right to vote", yes? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Places where non-citizens can currently vote in Maryland

This section appears to flout WP:DATED. It seems to me that it ought to be completely rewritten or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply integrate it into the 'Maryland' subsection of 'Recent events' ? A mere list in a specific subsection is pointless. --Minorities observer (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That section is a problem too. Please see WP:DATED and MOS:RELTIME. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparent self-contradiction in the lead section

The following two assertions in the current lead section appear to contradict one another:

• The federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926.[6]
• Eleven local governments, ten of them in Maryland, allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections.[7]

Could someone more knowledgeable in topical details here please fix this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not legally educated, but I see that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which is cited in a couple of places in the article, appears to attempt to legislate a prohibition against aliens voting in federal elections for the offices of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner. However,

• I don't see any prohibition against alien participation in such elections in the U.S. constitution but my (mis?)understanding is that legislation, once promulgated, is presumed to be constitutional unless and until federal courts decide otherwise.
• I think the first point above means to speak of election to state level executive and legislative offices, and the second point means to speak of election to other state level offices (e.g., school boards and local offices). That's guesswork, though.
• Article 1 § 2 of the U.S. constitution says that House members are elected by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.[1]
• Amendment 17 says that Senators are elected by the people each state, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.[2]
• I don't know where, or whether, the precise meaning of the term "people of the several States" is specified.
• Article II § 1 says that each State shall appoint electors for President and Vice President in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.[3]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have expertise in this area, having published a law review article assessing how courts would treat a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 611. Your interpretation is spot on. The Constitution does not prohibit noncitizens (or anyone else) from voting in any election. Art. I, sec. 2 says that the voter qualifications that states set for their state elections should be the same voter qualifications used in federal elections that occur in that state. 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections (this arguably violates Art. I, sec. 2, but the courts have not considered this argument as of now), but does not prohibit states from enfranchising noncitizens in other elections. Currently, every state has prohibited noncitizens from voting in state elections (elections for governor, state legislature, judges, state cabinet, etc.), but some states allow their local governments to enfranchise noncitizens in local elections (elections for county commission, city council, mayor, school board, sheriff, and so on). So the two statements in the lead don't really contradict each other--every state prohibits noncitizens from voting in state elections, but several local governments allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. The second statement could perhaps more clearly indicate that some states, despite banning noncitizen voting in state elections, allow local governments to set their own voter qualifications and allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made an edit that I hope clarifies this. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Aliens population, census counts, and apportionment

Are aliens counted in the census for the purpose of establishing the number of House representatives? IE If a state has many ( possibly millions of aliens) Do the aliens increase the number of that state's US House members? 2601:181:8301:4510:B90A:30F3:361D:100 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

My guess is: "that is a definite maybe." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember a ruling (probably before 1993) that persons, for this purpose, includes illegal aliens. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Palmyra Atoll

I've reverted This edit added mention of Palmyra Atoll (into a section where I can see no relation) because, apparently, its technical status as an Incorporated Territory, which would make any persons born there US citizens. I don't see the point of its addition to this article at all, since such persons (if there were to be any), being US citizens, would be of no concern in this article. On that island, there are no facilities for either citizens or noncitizens to vote. Noncitizen persons there wouldn't be able to vote in US elections. Any US Citizen persons there would be there temporarily, and would have a voting residence elsewhere. If you disagree, please discuss here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Washington, DC

I see on District of Columbia home rule that there were no District-wide elections from 1874 to 1973. A quick search did not find any info on citizenship requirements before 1874, and I'm wondering if anyone can put their finger on that. -- Beland (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Move to 'Noncitizen suffrage in the United States'?

'Noncitizen' seems to be the most common spelling when compared to 'non-citizen' Superb Owl (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. It is also inconsistent throughout the page, and I'd rather correct to the more common spelling. Gowser (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Political bias of "election fraud" see also link

The "See also: Electoral fraud in the United States" hatlink on the 21st Century section feels like it may violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The section outlines jurisdictions where non-citizen residents are allowed to vote legally in local elections and does not discuss its misuse. It's inclusion feels political. Maybe a solution would be to create a separate section on public opinion or reactions which can include the perception or allegations of electoral fraud? However this article should not assume electoral fraud as that would be clear political bias. --Gimelthedog (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if the change addresses your concerns. It's a relevant article but I agree that we don't want it to seem like it's the same topic, which it is not and could possibly use a separate section Superb Owl (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)