Few popular movements have so changed the face of California
politics as the Latino drive for citizenship that followed passage
of the anti-illegal immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.
Few popular movements have so changed the face of California politics as the Latino drive for citizenship that followed passage of the anti-illegal immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.
Feeling their presence here threatened after easy passage of that draconian initiative (most of it later struck down in federal court), hundreds of thousands of immigrants began lining up for citizenship almost the moment it passed. Since 1994, more than 1.2 million immigrants have attained U.S. citizenship in California, more than 80 percent of them Latino. They quickly became a force in this state’s public affairs.
Now comes an effort in San Francisco to give non-citizen parents and guardians voting rights in local school board elections. The city’s board of supervisors backed the idea, placing it on the November ballot and calling it a way to assure parents a voice in their kids’ lives and educations.
Problems were pointed out the moment this notion arose, including a contention by Louise Renne, San Francisco’s former city attorney, that any law allowing non-citizen voting would be overruled quickly as unconstitutional. In fact, while the U.S. Constitution gives states wide authority to regulate elections, Article 2 of the California constitution flatly says “a United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this state may vote.”
Many lawyers suggest this clause makes California cities different from others around the nation – in states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois and New York – which now allow non-citizen immigrants to vote in some local elections.
The legal argument begs the real issue here: What is more likely to encourage immigrants to learn the American system of government and American values, along with at least rudimentary English? Would more immigrants be encouraged in that direction by requiring them to know enough about America and enough English to pass a citizenship test? Or would more be encouraged to learn these things if voting rights were handed to them as a gift, requiring no effort on their part?
Most psychologists would say people are more motivated to learn if they have some significant goal before them.
For sure, voting rights are a significant goal. The issue arose in San Francisco because city schools there are peopled by children of widely varied ethnicities, from Chinese and Filipino to Indian, Mexican and Honduran.
Immigrant advocates like Democratic Assemblyman Leland Yee, a former San Francisco supervisor whose mother did not pass the citizenship test and so could not vote, say all parents should have a say in school board politics.
This logic suggests that all Californians, regardless of citizenship, should also have a voice in state politics, or that all residents in America should be able to vote in national elections even if they’re illegal immigrants. They all pay at least some taxes; they use at least some public services like roads and municipal water supplies.
This line of thought suggests that immigrants should not be required to spend any time learning about America before exercising the must fundamental American right.
Which gets back to the question of motivation. Many legal immigrants lived contentedly in America without bothering to learn much or seek citizenship until Proposition 187 made them feel threatened. They maintained ties with hometowns in other countries, often taking more interest in politics there than in the affairs of their new home.
But after the 187 wakeup call, hundreds of thousands took a different approach and began participating in California politics once they won citizenship. Latinos, the largest immigrant group, now make up about 18 percent of registered voters, more than double their early-1990s strength.
If they hadn’t been motivated to become citizens, politicians would not be visiting their neighborhoods, governments would not be building senior citizen centers, schools and parks there. Money for such improvements always goes where the voters are, rather than merely where it’s needed.
“Allowing non-citizens to vote is not only unconstitutional in California, it clearly dilutes the promise of citizenship,” says Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor.
In short, give non-citizens the right to vote in some elections and they might be satisfied and never seek citizenship, with all its rights and duties. Yes, some non-citizens might be so thrilled with being allowed an extremely limited right to vote that they’d follow through. But basic psychology suggests most would not.
Which means that in the long run, giving non-citizens a restricted right to vote will be bad for them, not to mention the resentment and divisiveness it would surely arouse among full citizens, whether native or naturalized.
