The New York City Council is set to approve a bill, Intro 1867, that allows legal permanent residents and those with work authorizations to vote in municipal elections and register as members of political parties. The work authorization category includes Dreamers, people enrolled in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or people with Temporary Protected Status. An individual must be a resident of New York City for at least 30 days before the election to qualify as a municipal voter. Notably, Intro 1867 does not expand voting rights to all non-citizens — it does not include undocumented immigrants or people with short-term visas (tourists, for example).
Intro 1867 authorizes qualified non-citizens to vote in municipal elections only. This means the new voters can take part in elections for New York City offices, including mayor, city council, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and local ballot measures. The non-citizen voters will not be eligible to vote in federal elections nor in statewide elections.
As of June 2021, 14 municipalities across the U.S. permit non-citizens to vote in local elections. 11 of these municipalities are in Maryland, two in Vermont and one in California. In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition N, which permits non-citizen parents of children in public schools to vote in school board elections. Most recently, two Vermont cities, including the capital Montpelier, changed their city charters to allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. While Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the plan, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature overrode that veto.
Laws that expand voting rights to certain non-citizens are often inaccurately characterized by opponents, either in defining which non-citizens can vote or in what type of elections.
Proponents (say): “These are residents of our city who live here, work here, go to school here, raise families here, and pay taxes here. They deserve to have a say in the direction of our city,” writes the Our City, Our Vote campaign. The new municipal voters would be composed of parents who send their children to public schools and homeowners, renters and business owners who want a say in the neighborhood policies. It’s also worth noting non-citizens in New York City have been on the frontlines during the pandemic, keeping the city running and New Yorkers healthy. Additionally, legal residents are required to pay taxes, even if they are not citizens. In New York City, that amounts to billions of dollars per year of “taxation without representation.”
Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a candidate in the 2021 election for New York county district attorney, also emphasized the long wait periods and administrative backlogs that lock residents out of the political process while waiting for their citizenship. “My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country,” Farhadian Weinstein writes. “Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote.”
In contrast to Republican voter suppression laws across the country, New York City is looking to expand voting rights and include more people in the political process. It is still a very rare step for a municipality to proactively implement, but nonetheless raises important questions about the country’s ideals of citizenship, representation and who gets a say in the policy that impacts everyday life.
My opinion - I am not a far left progressive (after all I subscribe to Bulwark!) - but I like to sample multiple sides of an argument and I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that people who pay taxes should have some level of voice in their community.
Just listened to the This is Madness podcast with Tim Miller - where this hold my beer topic was briefly discussed. Charlie's response to the "no tax without representation" argument was that advocates could also argue why limit this to local elections - allow legal permanent residents to also vote in statewide and federal elections. But are they actually saying this? Why isn't there a logical argument about allowing local votes but use broader voting rights as an incentive to obtain citizenship. I am getting very discouraged with the idea that Democrats have to do everything perfectly and message it perfectly or the abusive party will come back into power and punish us all.
The fact that other democracies allow local (municipal) voting, in some cases for many years, means it's not some wild and crazy idea. Local school boards impact the lives of the citizens of every municipality, including legal residents who have kids in those schools. Or to vote for and against issues that raise their property taxes. We're also talking about *legal residents* -- those who have green cards or other visas allowing them to live and work in the U.S. And like you, I agree that the right to vote in state and federal elections should come with citizenship.
Why is it troubling, other than the optics? I have vague memories of a revolution being fought where one of the rallying cries was no taxation without representation.
If you are paying taxes to some political subdivision (township, county, municipality) but do not reside there or are not a citizen (but are a legal resident) then why shouldn't you get some say via a vote about how your taxes are spent?
I used to live in one township but worked in a different one. I paid a tax to the one I did not reside in because I worked there. Did not get a cote for the local offices in that township, though.
Both Australia and New Zealand, where I spent some time, allow permanent residents to vote in their elections. New Zealand's policy seems a bit more open than Australia's, which (I think) only applies (in federal elections) to people who were permanent residents before 1984 -- but it appears that permanent residents in Australia may vote in some local elections. If someone has fulfilled the requirements to obtain permanent residency, it makes sense to me to allow them to vote in local, municipal elections.
In regard to your tweet about Dems not being in touch with the country's views on citizenship and your response that NYC says "hold my beer" - I found this article by Democracy Docket interesting - https://www.democracydocket.com/news/understanding-voting-rights-for-non-citizens
Selected Quotes from the article:
The New York City Council is set to approve a bill, Intro 1867, that allows legal permanent residents and those with work authorizations to vote in municipal elections and register as members of political parties. The work authorization category includes Dreamers, people enrolled in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or people with Temporary Protected Status. An individual must be a resident of New York City for at least 30 days before the election to qualify as a municipal voter. Notably, Intro 1867 does not expand voting rights to all non-citizens — it does not include undocumented immigrants or people with short-term visas (tourists, for example).
Intro 1867 authorizes qualified non-citizens to vote in municipal elections only. This means the new voters can take part in elections for New York City offices, including mayor, city council, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and local ballot measures. The non-citizen voters will not be eligible to vote in federal elections nor in statewide elections.
As of June 2021, 14 municipalities across the U.S. permit non-citizens to vote in local elections. 11 of these municipalities are in Maryland, two in Vermont and one in California. In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition N, which permits non-citizen parents of children in public schools to vote in school board elections. Most recently, two Vermont cities, including the capital Montpelier, changed their city charters to allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. While Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the plan, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature overrode that veto.
Laws that expand voting rights to certain non-citizens are often inaccurately characterized by opponents, either in defining which non-citizens can vote or in what type of elections.
Proponents (say): “These are residents of our city who live here, work here, go to school here, raise families here, and pay taxes here. They deserve to have a say in the direction of our city,” writes the Our City, Our Vote campaign. The new municipal voters would be composed of parents who send their children to public schools and homeowners, renters and business owners who want a say in the neighborhood policies. It’s also worth noting non-citizens in New York City have been on the frontlines during the pandemic, keeping the city running and New Yorkers healthy. Additionally, legal residents are required to pay taxes, even if they are not citizens. In New York City, that amounts to billions of dollars per year of “taxation without representation.”
Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a candidate in the 2021 election for New York county district attorney, also emphasized the long wait periods and administrative backlogs that lock residents out of the political process while waiting for their citizenship. “My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country,” Farhadian Weinstein writes. “Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote.”
In contrast to Republican voter suppression laws across the country, New York City is looking to expand voting rights and include more people in the political process. It is still a very rare step for a municipality to proactively implement, but nonetheless raises important questions about the country’s ideals of citizenship, representation and who gets a say in the policy that impacts everyday life.
My opinion - I am not a far left progressive (after all I subscribe to Bulwark!) - but I like to sample multiple sides of an argument and I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that people who pay taxes should have some level of voice in their community.
Just listened to the This is Madness podcast with Tim Miller - where this hold my beer topic was briefly discussed. Charlie's response to the "no tax without representation" argument was that advocates could also argue why limit this to local elections - allow legal permanent residents to also vote in statewide and federal elections. But are they actually saying this? Why isn't there a logical argument about allowing local votes but use broader voting rights as an incentive to obtain citizenship. I am getting very discouraged with the idea that Democrats have to do everything perfectly and message it perfectly or the abusive party will come back into power and punish us all.
The fact that other democracies allow local (municipal) voting, in some cases for many years, means it's not some wild and crazy idea. Local school boards impact the lives of the citizens of every municipality, including legal residents who have kids in those schools. Or to vote for and against issues that raise their property taxes. We're also talking about *legal residents* -- those who have green cards or other visas allowing them to live and work in the U.S. And like you, I agree that the right to vote in state and federal elections should come with citizenship.
Thanks for this perspective. Still troubling, but it makes more sense now.
Why is it troubling, other than the optics? I have vague memories of a revolution being fought where one of the rallying cries was no taxation without representation.
If you are paying taxes to some political subdivision (township, county, municipality) but do not reside there or are not a citizen (but are a legal resident) then why shouldn't you get some say via a vote about how your taxes are spent?
I used to live in one township but worked in a different one. I paid a tax to the one I did not reside in because I worked there. Did not get a cote for the local offices in that township, though.
Both Australia and New Zealand, where I spent some time, allow permanent residents to vote in their elections. New Zealand's policy seems a bit more open than Australia's, which (I think) only applies (in federal elections) to people who were permanent residents before 1984 -- but it appears that permanent residents in Australia may vote in some local elections. If someone has fulfilled the requirements to obtain permanent residency, it makes sense to me to allow them to vote in local, municipal elections.