S.F.proposes limited non-citizen voting

[hightime]

San Francisco, CA, Jun. 21 (UPI) -- A plan is being considered that allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in San Francisco school board elections.

The San Jose Mercury News said Monday the proposed November ballot measure was aimed at getting more parents involved in their children's education by waiving California's requirement that voters be U.S. citizens.

San Francisco has long been a home to a large Asian immigrant community as well as growing numbers of Latinos. Only those non-citizens with children in public school would be allowed to vote, and only in school board elections.

The Mercury said a similar proposal that would have allowed immigrants to vote in all municipal elections was rejected in 1996 by a judge who ruled the move would require an amendment to the state constitution
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040621-024645-8821r.htm

[bluestateguy]

1. A stupid idea

What's the point of citizenship then?

[AP]

3. Citizenship wasn't a requirement for voting until early 1900s

What was the point of changing law?

[Almost_there]

17. What are you talking about?

I think you need to read the Constitution again, check up on Amendment #15, adopted and ratified in 1870. Just check the wording, but, the amendment is about race and voting.

Amendment XV

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.

Every time the constitution mentions voting rights, it mentions with it "the right of citizens". Never in our history has a non-citizen been afforded the right to vote.

~Almost

[AP]

28. Guess what? That was for citizen ex-slaves. Non-cit's were allowed to vote

all over the country until the early 1900s when the people who dominated local politics realized that massive immigration was going to cause a tectonic shift in who controlled local politics.

So they started changing the law.

It was to make sure that politics was LESS democratic. The new laws passed constitutional muster. Whatever. But the reason for the change didn't REALLY have to do with national security (which happens to be the only reason you can discriminate based on nationality in the US -- discrimination based on alienage triggers the highest level of scrutiny, like race, by the way). The reason had to do with making voting less democratic.

[AP]

29. 22 states & territories allowed non-citizens voting rights up to 1920s

Basing voting rights on residence, rather than citizenship, is hardly a new idea. It affirms a fundamental principle of the American Revolution: "No taxation without representation!" Indeed, for most of this country's history, from its birth until the 1920s, non-citizens in twenty-two states and territories were allowed to vote in local, state and national elections and hold public office as aldermen and school committee members.

http://www.townonline.com/newton/news/opinion/new_colnehessmahan06082004.htm

[Maeve]

31. Yep--off the boat and into the vote

One of the reasons the Irish were able to make it in politics as quickly as we did.

[AP]

33. And that's the way it should be.

[truebrit71]

12. Oh I see, so if you choose to live here, pay taxes, register with

selective service, it's a stupid idea to have a say in how much you pay in taxes, or who gets to send you off to war?

If it's such a privilege to vote, how come less than 50% of citizens can even be bothered to pull the lever every four years?

[KDLarsen]

2. Bad Idea IMO

Didn't Gray Davis try to do something during the farce that was called a recall? I'm not sure, but I think it pissed off a lot of voters and thus came back to bite him in the rear end.

[Mz Pip]

16. Driver's licenses

for illegals. Did not go over well.

I love San Francisco and it is definitely ahead of the curve on many things, but this is not going to fly. One of the perks of citizenship is the right to vote.

MzPip
:dem:

[Trillo]

4. More vote rigging?

. . . measure was aimed at getting more parents involved in their children's education by waiving California's requirement that voters be U.S. citizens.

Why don't the parents become citizens? It's possible, and not rocket science. Can't they read? Can't they learn?

If non-citizens can vote, does that mean that shortly before elections, they'll be an influx of new non-citizens with the specific intent to skew election results?

[Baltimoreboy]

8. Voting is a privilege of citizenship

If you want to vote, great, just become a citizen.

[AP]

32. Democracy is not a priv. of society. Gov't is obligated to be democratic.

Giving people a say in the political process that influences their life and which they underwrite with their taxes is an obligation of government.

[Baltimoreboy]

57. Living here is voluntary

If you want full rights, then become a citizen.

[AP]

60. Who does it hurt to let these people have a say in the education of their

children?

This is baffling to me.

Our society depends on the next generation coming up and becoming good, productive citizens. And you want to deny the people who are the most concerned about the reproduction of our society a democratic say in how that's done?

That's mad.

[Baltimoreboy]

75. Your words, "This society."

No, mad is moving to a nation to make a fresh start and refusing to become a citizen. Citizenship has rights and responsibilities. Voting falls under both headings.

That doesn't deny children the right to an education. It just denies adults the right to vote on it until they become American citizens. No one is forcing them to live here, after all.

[AP]

76. So, a British citizen working at the British consulate in SF who puts...

... all his or her children through the public schools, or a Canadian mom married to an American guy and who is loyal to Canada but has moved to SF shouldn't be able to have a say in her child's education because they're mad for not wanting to become US citizens?

We're not talking about national security. We're talkinga about having a democratic say in a very narrow area of public policy which happens to have a huge influence on how America is able to reproduce itself.

If these people sent their kids to private schools, you can bet the private school would let them have a say in how their kids' educations are handled due to the fact that theyr'e paying for it. Do you think a private school would deny a seat on the board to a person becuase of his or her citizenship? I doubt it. Do you think it would be right if they did? I doubt it.

Why can't sales, income and property tax paying residents of a school district be able to have the same democratic control over their public school?

[geek tragedy]

Where would you draw the line?

What would you allow them to vote for and what would you not allow them to vote for?

[AP]

78. I think constitution to draws the line for alienage discrim at national...

...security.

I can understand limiting federal elections to citizen voters, since the federal government is involved heavily in national security. (And I can understand citizenship requirements for those who are elected to federal gov't positions.)

I can sort of understand state governments having national security inteterests, but I fiind them less compelling. If a state voted to allow non-US citizens to hold office and vote, I can understand it. I might even vote for it. But I'd have to hear all the arguments for both sides in order to make an informed decision.

Below that level -- county, city, municipal government -- I think residence is really all that should matter.

With the school board, I think it's a no-brainer. Clearly discrimination based on alienage serves no compelling interest. And, in fact, it promotes some extremely undemocratic and socially damaging interests -- in particular, it removes the people who are most interested an intelligent, educated reproduction of society.

[AP]

77. Or would you prefer two rules. One for poor non-citizens and another for

the rest?

And remember, the children of rich non-citizens don't really need that vote on the school board. They're going to be fine no matter what.

It's the poor non-citizens for whom a vote for the school board might be one of the best ways to insure that their (often) citizen children are able to enter the middle class and make YOUR world happier, healthier and wealthier.

We all do better when we all do better.

I still don't understand what valuable interest you think you're protecting by making life harder for immigrants.

[salin]

24. only parents of students attending public schools could vote, and only for

school board elections. Nothing else. Don't know that it would work - but it is an interesting proposal.

It takes years to get citizenship. Presumabely the kids would be out of school by that time. The idea is to get more parents of public school children involved in the schools including voting for school board (and nothing else). So waiting until the citizenship is earned (after the kids are likely out of school) rather defeats the end that those proposing this are trying to meet.

[Alenne]

5. I don't think there is anything wrong with this

It is only in school board elections and you have to have a child in the public schools. Non-citizens with children in public school should have a say in their child's education.

[Jim Sagle]

6. No, they should be grateful their kids are GETTING a public education.

[Alenne]

13. I am sure they are grateful

If we are going to educate their children, which is the best thing to do, we should let them have a say in their child's education.

[Baltimoreboy]

14. We do

We do that by letting them become citizens.

[Alenne]

15. Then don't let their kids in the schools

until they become citizens. Until we kick their children out of the public schools they should be allowed to vote in school board elections.

[Almost_there]

18. What is the criteria for "selective voting"?

You seem to be employing a slippery slope argument, that well, since these people aren't citizens, they should be kicked out of schools. No one is advocating that stance (at least not here!). Seriously though, voting in my opinion is for citizens of this country.

Only because you have a child in a school and can't vote, doesn't mean you cannot have a say in your child's education. No one is implying that you don't have access to educators, or don't have input with teachers, etc. Voting is perhaps the most fundamental right we as Citizens of the United States have. Why don't more people exercise that right? Actually, its prevelant in most modern democracies. People feel "well, what's my one vote going to matter? The polls already show Dumb Politician A winning, he doesn't need me to vote." Hell, a local school budget was just rejected by roughly 300-295. And that's in a town with maybe 20,000 voters, I would guess. Almost every democracy that is establish has apathy, its one of the rights of living in a free country.

The non-citizens who wish to participate in elections have a very simple decision to get the right to vote. Pass a very simple test, and swear allegiance (I think they do that in the citizenship exam, right?) to the United States, and exercise your new found rights. If you are an illegal alien, well, become legal, apply for a green card, and get on your way. Voting is a right that such a small percentage of the world enjoys, and it is not a freedom that comes without a price and without sacrifice.

~Almost

[AP]

30. People who live in a community, pay taxes, and are affected by policy...

...decisions should have a say in the policy making process.

[PepSky]

56. Do you think

you should go back to being white, male, and a property owner to vote? Same logic - yours is just a bit broader than the past.

[AP]

59. I think people affected by government should be able to have a say in it.

And we're talking about the level of the school board. I think if you have kids in the school you should be able to vote, but, since property owners (and renters, indirectly with their rent including a component which pays the LL's property taxes) support the school, I'm happy to make residence alone the criteria for being able to vote in a school board election.

As for white males, I suspect that 70% of the people who will benefit from this rule are non-white, I say to hell with that supposition.

So, residence -- ie, a form of local citizenship -- should be enough. Just like national citizenship is enough for voting in nationwide races, and state citizenship should be enough for voting for state-wide races.

The hostility to this basic, definining concept of democracy is startling to me.

[PepSky]

62. I apologize

I had misunderstood you to be opposed to voting rights.

[AP]

11. I totally agree. In some of those schools a substantial number of students

have parents who are immigrants.

They should definitely have a say in how their chidrens' schools are operated.

[Baltimoreboy]

7. Is this legit? It appears to be from the Wash Times

[hightime]

9. Would that automatically disqualify the story? How's this?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8977177.htm?1c
http://www.asianweek.com/050396/sfinitiative.html
http://www.hispanicvista.com/html4/052204maceri.htm
http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/ggjr/ggjr96/TENG.html

Just s quick google away.

[Baltimoreboy]

10. Thanks

Not necessarily, more like it raised questions with me.

[slackmaster]

37. I didn't know those were all right-wing rags

JUST KIDDING!

:freak:

[PepSky]

19. Not surprised to see americans against this

they cry democracy all the time. Bringing democracy to the world. If americans are so democratic why do they control puerto rico as if it were a bloody state, yet they get no representation in congress?

Various other democratic states (REAL democratic states) let non citizens residing in the country vote. Even Germany allows this when 60 years ago was a dictatorship.

More hypocrasy.

[wickerwoman]

20. My impression was that Puerto Rico was invited to become a state

several times and has so far declined.

I don't have a problem with non-citizens who have green cards and all the paperwork done and are waiting for citizenships voting in school elections.

But illegal aliens voting is absurd. Or course, what's forgotten here is why they would want to in the first place. They'd have to register to vote which would make it that much easier for INS to find them. As paranoid as they are of being deported, I don't see them registering just so they can have a say in the selection of their kids' textbooks.

[PepSky]

52. Yet

"several times and has so far declined"

The americans have continued to control them. Might that be a sign they don't WANT you to have dominance over them? Typical american logic. Then you'll preach to the world about how much you just love democracy and freedom. Explains your presidents foreign adventures pretty well too.

[geek tragedy]

55. Such ignorance and anti-americanism make you look foolish

The vast, vast, vast majority of Puerto Ricans do not want to be independent from the US.

Thet often hold referenda in Puerto Rico on this subject, and the pro-Independence votes are always under five percent.

I would hope you would bother to educate yourself before engaging in such mindless bashing of a people you don't understand.

[PepSky]

63. Says you american

Your chief says the same thing about how much the Iraqis love you being in their country. (shower you with flowers was it?) Unless you are puetro rican your opinion as to what they want means little. If american run elections were held in Iraq today I would not at all be surprised if the results indicated only 5% were unhappy with american occuptation. You can't trust your government to run fair elections on your own soil, yet you seem to believe they run them fairly abroad and accept those results.

I also find it interesting you have not yet seemed to consider the possibility that puerto rico now being highly dependent on you might influence their votes.

As well, if your nation was indeed so interested in democracy the people of puerto rico (being virtually a state with out representation) would have representation in your congress official state or not. Yet, they do not. Thus anyone claiming the united states to be so interested in democracy is full of it. I believe there is also such an issue on your nations soil in DC.

I believe the democratic party even recognizes this need. I have heard they have puerto rican delegates to the national convention. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[geek tragedy]

65. Do you know any Puerto Ricans?

Fact: No more than 5% of Puerto Ricans have ever voted in favor of independence.

Fact: Puerto Ricans have never voted in favor of statehood.

Fact: Always, whenever given a chance, Puerto Ricans have supported the current arrangement whereby they pay no federal taxes, get federal aid, but don't vote.

Fact: Puerto Ricans do not want to be independent from the United States. They want to remain governed by the United States.

Fact: Puerto Ricans are AMERICAN CITIZENS. Over one million of them live and are eligible to vote (if they're 18)in New York city alone.

Fact: Comparing Puerto Ricans to Iraqis is completely idiotic.

Fact: You have chosen to dismiss or ignore the best possible evidence of how Puerto Ricans feel about independence.

I have facts and logic. You have prejudice and ignorance.

I'm done making you look stupid. Go read a book and educate yourself.

[PepSky]

69. Hmmm

"Fact: No more than 5% of Puerto Ricans have ever voted in favor of independence."

And no more than 0% of Iraqis have ever voted for independence from you. What is your point?

"Fact: Puerto Ricans have never voted in favor of statehood. "

Perhaps because as I've suggested above they do not desire to be under your control?

"Fact: Always, whenever given a chance, Puerto Ricans have supported the current arrangement whereby they pay no federal taxes, get federal aid, but don't vote. "

Please don't try to minimize just how under you they are. Everyone in puerto rico is even subject to your draft should it be reinstated. It is a far greater control than your imagine. Yet, they have no representation.

"Fact: Puerto Ricans do not want to be independent from the United States. They want to remain governed by the United States. "

Hmmm... I seem to recall a great many american sources saying this same thing about Iraqis.

"Fact: Puerto Ricans are AMERICAN CITIZENS. Over one million of them live and are eligible to vote (if they're 18)in New York city alone. "

Cute. By this logic Iraqis are american citizens - after all, several million of them live in the united states.

"Fact: Comparing Puerto Ricans to Iraqis is completely idiotic."

Oh? They are both under your control. One is simply in a kinder situation.

"I have facts and logic. You have prejudice and ignorance. "

Typical. You attribute criticism about united states voting rights to prejudice when none exists. I have no problems with americans. Yet you assume as such. That must be why so many americans seem to believe everyone is out to get you.

[geek tragedy]

72. Please,

your comments about "Typical American logic" give you away.

Here is the undeniable FACT:

When given three choices

A) Things as they currently are;

B) becoming a state; and

C) becoming independent


95% of Puerto Ricans reject independence. They don't want to be independent. It's that obvious.

95% of Iraqis have not voted to remain occupied. And Iraqis don't have the right to vote in the US. They don't have a right to even set foot on American soil. They are not American citizens.

Puerto Ricans ARE American citizens. A Puerto Rican can move to California and instantly become eligible to vote for president as a Californian. Puerto Ricans can fly into any US state at will. They don't need a passport.

Do you get the difference now? That you are comparing Puerto Ricans, 95% of whom want to remain part of the US and 100% of whom are American citizens, to Iraqis, who are not American citizens, overwhelmingly reject US occupation, and have never been given a chance to express their wishes.

I'm sorry your country's media has brainwashed you about the United States and filled you with misinformation.

[wickerwoman]

83. You are aware that there is more than one kind of American right?

I do love democracy and freedom. The problem is that 49% of the other people in the country I happen to live in are perfectly happy to compromise other people's freedom and democracy to ensure their own. If Puerto Rico wants to become independant and stop receiving American aid, I would be happy to support that. If Puerto Rico wants to become a state, I'm fine with that too. They have been offered both of these opportunities many times and have turned them down. So I have to assume that they like the current arrangement. And as another poster has already explained, it is patently absurd to compare Puerto Rico to Iraq.

America is schizophrenic, not hypocritical. We have undereducated, greedy, provincial buffoons just like every other country in the world (including yours.) And in case you're lost, you're on a message board full of people trying to make thing more just and equitable in the world so why don't you cool it with the "typical American" bullshit. How would you like it if I dug up quotes from the stupidest people in your country and then shoved them in your face as "typical ______ logic" implying that you feel the same way?

George Bush is not the president of a single person on this message board. We all voted for Gore or Nader. So if you feel the need to vent against "typical Americans" might I suggest www.freerepublic.com as a more appropriate venue.

[Baltimoreboy]

22. If non-citizens want to vote

They are welcome to go to those nations that allow it. Right now, America does not and that is a good policy. You are more vested in what goes on if you are a citizen.

[PepSky]

53. Hmmm

what about those non-citizens in your military fighting for you? You don't think they have a more vested interest in what is going on than most of your citizens on the coach watching TV (something like 50% who don't even get up to vote) and believe bush is a war hero?

Faulty logic. There are plenty of non-citizens that are more civic minded in your nation than citizens. Perfect example are those that die in your army.

[Baltimoreboy]

58. They are here voluntarily

And those in the military are doing so because they can become citizens. Citizenship takes time. I fully support those who put in the time and effort.

[AP]

61. Why does anyone want to make it harder for people to make positive

contributions to society?

You don't benefit by making these people's lives more difficult.

What valuable interest do you think you're protecting by not letting parents hold their school boards democratically accountable?

[PepSky]

64. So in other words

you have no problem denying the vote to some of those who fight for you. Typical.

[geek tragedy]

66. Are you here to discuss issues

or just insult Americans?

Where do you live, by the way?

[PepSky]

67. I am discussing issues

I am bringing up the hypocrisy of some who wish to deny the right to vote.

I notice you seem to have run out of defense for denying some of your soldiers the right to vote. I'll take this as a concession.

You can either agree that it is OK or not OK. I find it to be not OK and disgraceful. I'm sure you have your opinion as well.

If you find me calling your governments policies as they are to be "insulting" then maybe you should change them or learn to accept the insult.

[geek tragedy]

68. I don't think

non-citizens should be allowed in the military.

[PepSky]

70. Ok

The fact remains they are.

I suppose it should be

1. Let them in the military and allow them to vote.

or

2. Do not let them in the military and do not allow them to vote.

[geek tragedy]

73. I would agree with that.

Or, as AP suggested, make them instant citizens when they sign up.

But, I just don't like the idea of the government bribing people to risk their lives with citizenship. It's just wrong.

[AP]

71. I agree. The US should not be allowed to impress other citizens into its

army.

If you can't get enough people who are loyal to your country to serve in your army, you need to take a long hard look at what you're doing as a country.

And citizenship shouldn't be a reward for completed service (which is how I understand the armed services are doing it now).

We should give citizenship first to anyone who wants to serve in the army.

[Kellanved]

40. small correction

Germany (like most EU countries) allows EU citizens to vote in local and European elections. Without the German citizenship voting on State or Federal level is not possible.

[PepSky]

54. Still

they allow non-germany citizens to vote in some elections. (as most of europe does) Same thing this city is proposing.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Non-nationals can vote in Irish local elections....

From the Galway Advertiser:

While the 2004 local elections will be remembered for the sweeping changes it made to Galway's local authorities, it also saw a new development that will have an important bearing in the long term - non-nationals standing for election.

Two Nigerians stood in this year's local elections. Tokie Laotan ran for a seat in the North and East Ward while Rev Paul Osikoya stood in both the South and West wards. While neither was in contention for a seat, their participation was important. Both broke new electoral ground in Galway, paving the way for other non-national candidates in the future.

Ms Laotan received a first preference vote of 311 and lasted until the seventh count (longer than two Fine Gael, two Fianna Fáil, one Labour, and one other Independent candidate) and she accumulated a respectable total vote of 361. As a result Ms Laotan could afford to be pleased with her performance and felt she had proved a point. “It was a great experience,” she told the Galway Advertiser, “and this election showed change was possible. You can’t have the same thinking all the time.”

http://galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2004/06/17/news/47634.html

[Almost_there]

26. Non national is totally different than citizen

Someone born outside of Ireland, of non-Irish decent in this case is considered a non-national. Much as an emigree to the US that becomes naturalized is a non-national. These people were not voting, they were running. There are many naturalized citizens in this country that run for and hold office, many in NYC politics, and if my memory serves... yup! The Governor of California is a non-national.

This article mentions nothing about citizenship of Ireland, and I don't think that's the gist of it.

~Almost

[Bridget Burke]

34. The Ninth Amendment of the Irish Constitution

(passed in 1984) extended some voting rights to non-nationals.

These non-nationals are legal residents but not citizens.

[SideshowScott]

23. I don't agree with it ..But on the bright side it will drive Savage NUTS!

I think that to have the voting right you should be an American citizen. I think it would lead to too many problems on all sides of the political spectrum. I mean if someone can vote for a candidate in thire country and ours is that Fair? I think it would that lead to strange new platforms and such..Just a thought. Or we could have tons of people comming here just to vote then leaving..That would make election 2000 look like a small gitch. For the record i think its a bad idea.
But on the lighter side it will drive San Fran Native Mike ( Wiener ) Savage CRAZY! His head might explode on air. I hope it does not go thru because I would HATE to agree with him on any subject because he would just twist it into his own fascist agenda. I am deffanlty not one of those close our borders and throw who is not American out types but I do think that some things should be for the people who are legal citizens of the united states. We have enough problems with voting already!

[salin]

25. Except, of course, they would only be allowed to vote for school board

and no other office.

Finding the scenario rather humorous, though... suddenly thousands sneek in - just to vote for the school board... then they steathily disappear... Having elected an odd third party member to the multiseat school board.

[Almost_there]

27. Why right wing nuts might just like this idea...

Well, actually, if this is opened to illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants, the right wing nuts could use this to arrest people when they register to vote. I could see it now... the person walks into a booth pointed out to them by the friendly voting assistant, and it turns out to be the back of a INS truck.

[Isere]

35. It's a silly idea!

And I hope it is a non-starter! If immigrants want to vote, let them become citizens.
Period.

[slackmaster]

36. This won't be worth the backlash it causes

It would surely be spun as another case of San Francisco being off the deep end, and a showdown in the courts would be inevitable.

[bushwakker]

39. Precisely

let's work on health care, jobs, the environment etc before all this other extraneous bullshit, gay marriage etc...

[LiberalFighter]

38. What would be the details in determining that the voter is a parent...

with children in the public schools?

Will special identification be required to prove that they are parents with children in the public schools?

What about grandparents that have custody of their grandkids?

How much more will it cost to have separate ballots just for school board elections?

[AP]

41. I believe it's based on residency. If you're a resident of the district

you can vote in the election.

Haven't you ever lived in a foreign country an wished you could vote in local elections which effect your quality of life and how your taxes are spent?

We're not talking about electing people who are going to make national security decisions. We're talking about people who are making decision about how your citizen children will grow up and whether they will have good enough educations so that they can enter the middle class and be happy and take care of you when you're older.

[LiberalFighter]

79. It takes more than just saying you are a resident of the district.

How will potential voters have to certify that they are a resident of the district and more important... that they do have children in the public school district? How often will the parents have to prove that they have children in the public school district?

[AP]

81. Why would they want to vote in a school board election if they weren't?

But that's besides the point.

How do you prove your residence when you vote? If you have kids in public school, don't you think your local government has a record of that? What's so hard about compiling your address and the fact that you have children of school age who attend a public school?

I have faith in the sophistication of adult human beings to be able to do that.

It's worth the effort.

[geek tragedy]

42. ILLEGAL immigrants?

Stupid fucking idea. If you have no legal right to be here, you have no legal right to vote here.

Anyways, unless the California constitution has been amended, this ain't gonna fly. The California constitution limits voting rights to citizens of the United States.

[AP]

43. These are non-citizens. Whether they're legal isn't the issue.

They're residents. All you need to do is prove you're a resident and you can vote in the school board election.

These people pay taxes, and send their kids to these schools. They should have a voice in how they're run.

[geek tragedy]

45. Illegals pay taxes?

I highly doubt that illegal aliens are paying income and property taxes.

[AP]

48. (1) They're not neccessarily illegals (British citizens who work at the...

...British consulate will get to vote) and (2) I believe the biggest tax revenue generator for most counties is sales tax, and sales tax doesn't discriminate according to alienage.

[AP]

51. If illegals rent, they're subisidizing LL's property tax burden, and if...

...they provide a false SS#, they're foregoing income and paying into someone elses SS acc't.

If an illegal doesn't file an income tax return, then he or she doesn't get the homestead credit for renters, so they're paying even MORE taxes than a person who is legal and does file for the homestead credit.

[AP]

44. A couple questions:

(1)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in
this State may vote.

This doesn't say only US citizens, 18 years of age, residents can vote. Is says they cannot be prevented from voting (unless some law is passed that takes their right away).

(2)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

Does that mean they can pass a law broadening the clas that's allowed to vote?

(3) If the City of SF wants to make a special rule for school board elections, what does it matter what the state constitution says? Isn't that a city matter? Can't they make their own rules?

[geek tragedy]

46. The city derives its authority from the State

All state laws are binding on cities.

The provision should be read as a restriction. Otherwise, five year olds and non-resident non-citizens could also have the right to vote.

I don't know a ton about California's law, but I would be surprised if the legislature could monkey around with an area where the constitution has spoken.

[AP]

49. They may be able to vote -- if the state passed a law to let them.

But they can't stop US Citizens over the age of 18 and residen of CA from voting unless they pass allow preventing them (which they have done with felons),

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

47. looks like AP dropped "illegal"

There is nothing at all in the San Jose Mercury News article about letting illegal immigrants vote.

There is, however, a weird heading:
SUBS lede of 3rd brf to DROP word illegal; EDITS thruout; Eds: Contains items from Hillsborough, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose

Associated Press
<snip down to 3rd brief>
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - City officials are reviewing a proposed ballot initiative that would allow immigrants, whose children attend public schools, the right to vote in school board elections.
<snip>
The Rules Committee will convene Wednesday to review the proposal. The issue then heads for a vote to the full San Francisco Board of Supervisors. If approved the ballot would then be considered by voters in November.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/counties/alameda_county/8977967.htm

It doesn't make sense to me to let illegal immigrants vote since they are, uh, illegally here to begin with.

Maybe there's a reason to let residents vote, and since it would be local elections only, I say let them do whatever they want.

[Loonman]

50. Wrong

Wrong on so many levels.

[TankLV]

74. This is just sooo wrong on sooo many levels.

What the fuck are they thinking? Not enough pukes to cheat and lie and steal votes that they have to go after foreigners, too?

This is simply INEXCUSEABLE!

[Carolab]

80. A VERY BAD TREND

I watched Lou Dobbs tonight and they discussed a book called "Latino Wave". The projections are that eventually, in the not too distant future, Latinos will represent 50% of the vote. At this time, apparently, only 17% of Latinos vote Democratic and 30% vote Republican. Their votes are being "bought" by the administration with amnesty and their "naturalization" is being fast-tracked by voluntary military service. I'm not against legitimate American citizens who have gone through the normal citizenship channels being allowed to vote. But illegal aliens? FORGET IT!!! Allow school board elections now...and state and national elections will follow. Write to protest this. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[AP]

82. None of that makes sense.

You seem to be conflating demographic trends relating to citizens and immigration. 50% of the population will be Latino some day. What does that have to do with non-citizens voting? The City of SF non-citizens are heavily Asian and Russian and not just Latino. Much of the growth in the Latino population is among current citizens and legal latino immigration.If legal latino voters grow to 50% does that have any corrleation to non-citizen trends?

Regardless of how Latino's vote (and your numbers don't match my recollection of 2000 Latino vote trend -- Bush got 35% and Gore got 65% ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-16-latino-votes_x.htm ) I don't see how anyonese better off by denying tax payers the right to participate in the way they're governed.

Again, non-citizen demographics arent't he same as latino demographics, but, for the sake of argument, let's say they are. The Democrats are crazy to turn their back on any demographic that lives mostly in the middle and working class. If we can't convince these people to vote Democratic, Democrats might as well call it a life and give up.

And what about the basic principles of democracy: if you get taxed, you should be able to participate in society. There is nothing to be gained from making these people suffer. All people who work for a living are better off when other people who work for a living are able to contribute to society, are able to retain a fair % of the wealth they create, and are able to participate in the government.

If you're an American who ever lives abroad and you watch a local government make decisions that effect your ability to contribute to society, you might get a little salty about not being able to participate in those decisions.

I see no reason for denying people the ability to participate in government when national security isn't an issue.

[Carolab]

84. So those who skip taxes shouldn't participate?

Tell that to Bill Gates, who pays NOTHING in taxes since he is able to fund all of his income through a private trust.

The "income tax" issue is NOT the point. It's CITIZENSHIP that matters in this country. PERIOD. Shit, how many of these people even understand/speak English in the first place--well enough to vote? At least if they become citizens they need to demonstrate proficiency. Haven't we got enough uneducated, uninformed voters as it IS?

By the way, "MY" numbers on Latinos came from the Latino gentleman who wrote the book discussed on Dobbs. Take it up with HIM.

Incidentally, "only" school board issues is treating this very lightly, when one considers the impact schools have on real estate values, and property taxes. Your view is a more than bit short-sighted.