The non-citizen vote merits more scrutiny, especially with the case of Jane Balogh, now being prosecuted for her stunt to draw attention to lax voter registration procedures, which she believes permit non-citizen voting.
The evidence I've found to date suggests that non-citizens register to vote in King County, and a few do vote. Bureaucrats at both the local and federal level are aware of the phenomenon, but prefer to deal with it quietly, after the fact, and only when the non-citizen comes forward. I've yet to see any indication that any non-citizen has been penalized for registering to vote or voting (both of which entail signing an oath attesting to citizenship and/or eligibility). I haven't seen any indication that any official has ever attempted to quantify the scale of non-citizen voting. Nor have I seen any indication that any official has investigated to determine the processes through which these non-citizens become registered in the first place.
Recall two years ago I stumbled across two documented cases of non-citizens who voted in November 2004. These voters cancelled their registrations after the election. The Prosecutor's memo on his actions against election illegalities does not mention any actions regarding non-citizen voting. The newspapers never reported on these non-citizen voters. (These two non-citizen voters were an issue in the trial, but even the Republicans had to concede they couldn't be used to contest the election because of the way the limitations of the contest statute and the judge's prior ruling. Seriously)
Last week I stumbled across some more documentation on non-citizen voters [PDF, 6 pages], stuffed almost randomly in some King County Elections files that I was looking through.
Pages 5 and 6 of the collection are a letter from INS asking a naturalization applicant to submit his voter registration record and to explain "your reason for registering as a voter prior to becoming a citizen of the United States". Records show that the individual in question registered in 2002, but never voted. His registration was cancelled with the reason "Cancel by Voter Request" shortly after the INS letter was sent.
Another non-citizen (pp. 3-4) had registered in 1998, but never voted, then had her registration cancelled in 2004.
Yet another non-citizen (pp. 1-2) registered in 1996 and "voted in 1996, 1997,1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002" before she requested that her registration be cancelled.
My hypothesis is that these individuals came forward because they were going through some kind of immigration process and wanted to have a clean record. But I wish we knew how they became registered in the first place so the holes in the system could be effectively plugged. But we don't. Because bureaucrats prefer the course of least resistance. And voter registration is already sloppy and immigration records are already sloppy. And the "immigrants rights" mafia will unleash a furore on any public official who wrinkles their brow in the wrong way that might hint that they might be contemplating measures that might in some cases be perceived to hurt the feelings of someone in the Undocumented-American community. So the easiest thing for the bureaucrats to do is to just sweep the whole mess under the rug. But the more these "mistakes" are just swept under the rug, the easier it is for miscreants to get away with deliberately violating the law, the more that law-abiding citizens lose confidence in the integrity of elections, and the more intractable the whole problem becomes. Sigh.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 27, 2007 11:11 AM | Email ThisWhat do expect KCREALS to do?
Tell the truth?
Posted by: KC Dem on June 27, 2007 11:36 AMThis is not just a King County, or even a Washington state problem. When I registered to vote, in California, when I turned 18, all I had to do was fill out the form, including the bit saying that yes, I was a citizen, and send it in.
Same thing when I became a Washington resident in 2003.
But requiring everyone to furnish proof of citizenship-a notorized copy of a birth certificate or naturalization papers, as well as eiligibility to vote in a particular location, is, you know, voter suppression or something like that.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on June 27, 2007 11:50 AMIsn't that why Democrats rent buses and offer coffee and cigarettes to vagabonds? They are told who to vote for when they show to the voting place. Then they go to another poll?
Posted by: swatter on June 27, 2007 12:24 PMBut, Bob, the Americans catch the criminals (read rapists, murderers)and then deport them. And then they come back overnight.
Posted by: swatter on June 27, 2007 03:36 PMand i'll show you a person that's either insane, has a death wish or is truly righteous (but will soon be snuffed out even by his own government.)
like the "i want world peace" utterings of a Miss America, it's nice, but we all know the drill.
p.c. had destroyed us to the point of being afraid to even "suggest" we enforce our own reasonable laws. how did that happen? i suspect voter apathy.
3rd world Ameri-chaos, here we come!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 27, 2007 09:19 PMThere is no requirement in our Constitution for citizens to prove their citizenship or have citizenship papers. If you decide to burn all paperwork that relates to your citizenship, you are still a citizen, and you still have a right to vote. That is what our Constitution necessarily means, using the plain language of it.
Now, that does not mean you cannot check citizenship. You can still do it, and then if someone can't prove it, then go through extra hoops where a board or something will evaluate whether or not that person is a citizen. I don't know. But the Constitution does not allow us to exclude citizens from voting just because they don't have a piece of paper.
Posted by: pudge on June 28, 2007 08:54 AMThe 15th Amendment (1869) reads:
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.
(notice the word "citizens")
the 19th (1920) reads:
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 sex.
again, the word "citizens" is in the constitution with respect to voting rights.
There is nothing in the Constitution to say how one would define a citizen or verify that they are such...leaving that to the legislators to define. Therefore, why couldn't a law be defined that in order to prove your citizenship rights, you have to prove that you're a citizen (i.e. by photo identification)?
Therefore, I think you're wrong when you state that the Constitution does not allow us to exclude citezens from voting just because they don't have a piece of paper. The Constitution is silent on the subject. Since it does not expressly forbid it (like say limiting one's free speech rights written in the First Amendment), then the Constituion DOES allow it.
Please let me know where I'm wrong.
Posted by: drw on June 28, 2007 01:37 PMThere is nothing in the Constitution to say how one would define a citizen or verify that they are such...leaving that to the legislators to define.
Correct.
Therefore, why couldn't a law be defined that in order to prove your citizenship rights, you have to prove that you're a citizen (i.e. by photo identification)?
Because it is citizens who have the right to vote, not "people who prove themselves citizens."
Therefore, I think you're wrong when you state that the Constitution does not allow us to exclude citezens from voting just because they don't have a piece of paper.
Well, I am quite certain I'm right. :-)
The Constitution is silent on the subject. Since it does not expressly forbid it (like say limiting one's free speech rights written in the First Amendment), then the Constituion DOES allow it.
Nope, that's not how the Constitution works. First of all, the federal government is quite clearly one of enumerated rights, which means that if the Constitution doesn't say it, then it is more than likely it IS forbidden (see the Tenth Amendment). Second, there's also the Ninth Amendment, which quite clearly says you are wrong: just because some rights are enumerated, doesn't mean we do not have other rights.
A Ninth Amendment case here would be pretty simple to make. The Ninth says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And clearly, the right of a citizen to vote, without written proof of citizenship, has long been a right of the people.
But I wouldn't bother going there. The concept is more basic than that: the government cannot require us to fulfill some additional obligation in order for us to exercise our rights. It is your right as a citizen to vote, so therefore, you can vote if you are a citizen, period, even if you have no written proof of citizenship.
You further error when you say that clearly the right of a citizen to vote, without written proof of citizenship has long been a right of the people...therefore reasoning that the right has always existed. That is not the case. The right belongs to the CITIZEN...not a person per se, therefore, just because they've never needed ID before, doesn't mean that a law requiring such ID would necessarily be unconstitutional.
Yes, it is your right as a citizen to vote, but not your right if you're not a citizen. Therefore, requiring proof of citizenship is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional.
Notice that in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments all mention PEOPLE or PERSONS (not citizens). Therefore, the Constitution itself makes a distinction. All people in the US have certain rights, but citizens have additional rights (such as to vote). You don't need documentation that shows you have the right to free speech as that is granted to all, but rights of citizens are granted to less and requiring proof of citizenship to exercise those rights is neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable.
Posted by: drw on June 29, 2007 03:46 PMYou misquoted me. Here is what I actually said (emphasis added): ".. the federal government is quite clearly one of enumerated rights, which means that if the Constitution doesn't say it, then it is more than likely it IS forbidden (see the Tenth Amendment)." I was, obviously, saying that if it is not enumerated it is forbidden to the federal government, so you are the one in error.
I was not linking this to the discussion at hand, but merely noting that your interpretation was incorrect, as I read it. (Oh, and now as I look back at what you originally said, you incorrectly stated that Senators and Reps were initially chosen by electors; on the contrary, Reps were always chosen by the people, and the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures, not by electors.
Yes, it is your right as a citizen to vote, but not your right if you're not a citizen. Therefore, requiring proof of citizenship is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional.
Your reasoning is entirely specious, and unsupported by the plain language of the Constitution, or any precedent. Last I checked, citizens are people. You appear to think that ONLY rights that apply to EVERYONE are protected by the Ninth Amendment, but that's quite clearly not the case: it applies to any right that any people have.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that rights specific to citizens are protected by the Ninth Amendment, for example, United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75:
We accept appellant's contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are involved. The right claimed as inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party official or worker to further his own political views.
You don't need documentation that shows you have the right to free speech as that is granted to all, but rights of citizens are granted to less and requiring proof of citizenship to exercise those rights is neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable.
Nope. It's both. Requiring me to have a piece of paper in order to exercise my right to vote means my right can be taken away from me merely by losing that piece of paper. It's unreasonable, and unconstitutional.
Note that I am not using the standard arguments against this, which I think are dumb. All that nonsense about discriminating against ethnic groups or discouraging lazy people from registering. The first is baloney, and the second I don't care about.
My concern is for the people who simply decide, for whatever reason, they do not want to have, or simply do not have, documentation of citizenship: under the "proof" plans that do not offer any other way -- no proof, no vote -- it directly violates their absolute right to vote. You may say, of course, that such people are a very small percentage of the whole: but that's irrelevant, because we are talking about fundamental rights.
There is also a due process claim: you cannot have your rights taken away, as per the Fourteenth Amendment, without due process, which means that the government has to prove you are not a citizen, not the other way around. Anything less directly violates the Constitution.
As I stated several comments ago, if someone can appear before a board of some kind and, without proof, be judged a citizen -- where the burden of proof is not on himself, as per the Fourteenth Amendment -- that would be acceptable to me. But that's usually not what's going on.
The history of our Republic is quite clear: they wanted to make sure no one was required to provide papers proving they had rights, which is why we cannot be forced to provide papers when going from one state to the next. How much moreso can we be required to provide proof in order to exercise a much more fundamental right, the right to vote?
Posted by: pudge on June 29, 2007 06:24 PMThe power of negative thinking. Love it. And there in lays the problem. A person that may or may not be a citizen of this country may claim the benefits of being a citizen. And in so doing those benefits may not be denied, unless of course that person admits he is not a citizen of America. And even then, that person is seldom punished to past transgressions. Humm. I need a passport when returning from a foreign country to prove to the Agent representing Customs that I am a citizen. On the other hand no document is required to cross the Rio Grand River and gain entrance by-passing the Customs Agent. And once in, who will deny my claim of being a citizen. Sounds like national suicide to me. Pass the Kool Aide.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 2, 2007 12:15 AMHm? Why are you thinking negatively, and what do you think is so great about you doing so?
A person that may or may not be a citizen of this country may claim the benefits of being a citizen. And in so doing those benefits may not be denied, unless of course that person admits he is not a citizen of America.
Why do you think things should work that way? I obviously don't agree with you, but I am curious as to why you think we should not be able to deny citizenship benefits without an admission of non-citizenship. It's an odd view I've never heard of before, could you explain it?
Posted by: pudge on July 2, 2007 10:33 AM