Category: election law

Categories
election law Voting

A Puzzling Protest

Texas, voting, elections, citizen voting

Talk about a blowout: a few days ago, Texans overwhelmingly supported Proposition 16 to amend their state constitution to clarify that noncitizens cannot vote in state and local elections in Texas. The vote: Yes, 72%; No, 28%.

Not everybody is happy.

Jeff Forrester, who happens to be running against Rep. Candy Noble, a major sponsor of this very amendment — just a coincidence I’m sure — professes confusion about why anybody would care about this question. He asserts that the state constitution already prohibits noncitizen voting and has flung himself into a major Twitter‑X tussle over the matter with the group I lead, Americans for Citizen Voting.

Per Forrester, the Texas constitution “already states that no one other than U.S. citizens can vote” in Texas elections.

But as we point out, prior to passage of the present amendment, the state constitution only explicitly protected the rights of U.S. citizens to vote. It did not “reserve the right to vote to only [U.S.] citizens.… It didn’t prohibit Dallas from giving the right to noncitizens to vote in local elections.”

Similarly deficient provisions in the constitutions of other states have also failed to prevent cities from allowing noncitizen voting on local matters. Now, with passage of Prop 16, there is no way for noncitizens to legally vote in Texas.

Those who assert that the Prop 16 amendment is pointless protest too much. If it’s so durn redundant, why isn’t the response to this voter-​endorsed clarification simply a shrug?

Instead, we get finger-​wagging opposition.

Very “mysterious.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law

Over-​Regulated or Regulations Over?

Critiques of campaign finance regulations (CFR) often focus on particularly egregious applications or expansions of the regulations.

That’s fine. When somebody who is hammering us on the head starts hammering even harder, it’s okay to object. 

We should make clear, though, that we object to being head-​bashed at all, not just the latest intensification.

In an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the Institute for Free Speech and the Manhattan Institute are tackling CFR-​rationalized repression of speech (CFRRS) as such.

“By conflating election campaign speech with the mechanics of running elections,” IFS says, “the Supreme Court has allowed the government to trample the First Amendment through campaign finance laws.”

This has been going on at least since the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

The current case, NRSC v. FEC, pertains to federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties, which is allowed in many states. IFS punches holes in the excuses for this instance of CFRRS but also stresses the bottom line.

“The brief argues that the federal government lacks the power to regulate this type of speech in the first place.… The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of electing federal officials. But … speech about candidates is not the same thing as the election itself, and the Elections Clause does not give Congress authority to regulate core political speech.”

Obviously. May at least five out of nine justices grasp this also.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law national politics & policies Voting

Lost Their Bearings

voting, democracy, immigration, non citizen voting

“Washington, D.C. should have every right to set its own rules and policies, just as Vermont does,” argues Sen. Peter Welch (D‑VT). “The micromanagement by congressional Republicans and Trump must end.”

First, the District of Columbia is not a state. Vermont is, if you’re playing at home. 

Second, Congress and the President have constitutional authority and responsibility for our nation’s capital. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution specifically empowers Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States …”

Sen. Welch’s comments above, from last week’s Washingtonian magazine article, were in defense of the noncitizen voting law passed by the D.C. City Council, which every Republican in the U.S. House — joined by 56 Democrats — voted to repeal. (Senate action awaits.) The Vermont senator was featured because three Vermont cities also allow noncitizens to vote.

I oppose the laws in those three Vermont cities as well as in our nation’s capital. But Washington, D.C.’s law is the worst. 

Why? It allows noncitizens in the country illegally to vote. It offers the vote even to foreign nationals working in the embassies of hostile powers. For instance, China’s and Russia’s ambassadors could decide who the next mayor is … or pass or defeat ballot measures. 

Make any sense? Not a lick.

One new local D.C. officeholder is Mónica López. She is not really a “noncitizen,” just a citizen of Mexico. And one of three non‑U.S. citizens who were elected to Washington’s powerless neighborhood advisory council.

“It’s incredibly local,” López offers. “It has no bearing over anything federal.”

Really? None? She’s in a federal enclave, where the feds do their million-​billion things, and what she’s up to has no bearing on it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law term limits

Texas Range War

Texas, Gerrymander, voting, democracy, elections

Fifty-​one Democrats have left the Republic — er, State — of Texas.

Well, 51 Democratic state legislators have run past the border, all to prevent a redistricting scheme. They constitute a minority in the House, but without them a quorum cannot be reached. 

Think of it as a form of filibuster.

Or “voting with their feet.”

“Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced that a quorum had not been met after roll call,” an Epoch Times article tells us, going on to say that “House members then approved a motion for the speaker to sign warrants ‘for the civil arrest’ of the members who said they would not be there.”

Since the fleeing pols are in other states, I don’t see how that can work out.

Meanwhile, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has taken her fellow Democrats’ side and said that she would re-​district New York in favor of Democrats. “We’re not going to tolerate our democracy being stolen in a modern-​day stagecoach heist,” she said, using a colorful metaphor.

Other Democratic states have fallen in line, upgrading the gerrymandering crisis from heist to feud.

Twenty-​five years ago I wrote that “courts have struck down districts drawn to get a certain racial outcome, but have turned a blind eye to districts that arbitrarily favor one party over another. The solution to incumbents monopolizing our elections is term limits. But another key factor in promoting democracy is to stop the politicians from drawing rigged districts that squelch competition.”

Term limits sure would help, by de-​stabilizing the “property rights” the two parties feel in their favored districts with old hands firmly tied to their estates.

It’s the wild, wild worst out there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law

A Nothing in Michigan

Michigan, voting, citizenship

It’s May in Michigan and Democrats have just “introduced their first pieces of legislation to respond to what they consider overly aggressive Republican proposals to improve election security,” Hayley Harding reports for VoteBeat.

Yes, the problem is those darn Republicans wanting too much election security too fast, doncha know.

“Michigan Democrats’ election proposals sidestep the noncitizen-​voting issue for now,” was how the Michigan Advance headlined the article, in which Harding explains that “the package of bills under the Michigan Election Security Act won’t close the voter registration loopholes that may have allowed at least one noncitizen to cast a ballot that counted last year.” 

Oops! That one University of Michigan student, Haoxiang Gao, is a Chinese national, who didn’t show up for court; whereabouts currently unknown. 

Since that bombshell, another 15 cases have surfaced of noncitizens voting illegally last November. Nonetheless, Harding informs us that “the bills omit the measures Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson suggested in February as a way to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots in Michigan’s elections.”

Back then Benson “didn’t provide details of her proposal,” noted Harding, but mentioned “policies that enable us to track and retrieve” those votes “cast by voters who registered the same day as the election.”

“It could be provisional ballots, it could be additional verification or residency requirements in that moment,” the Secretary of State, now a candidate for governor (whose recent campaign announcement on state government property violated state law) offered reporters. 

Sure, her proposal could have been a lot of things.

Now we see, however, that it is nothing. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment election law Voting

DOGE vs. Illegal Voting

DOGE, Government Efficiency, dog, bureaucrats, Washington D.C.

Only five people. What’s the big deal?

The Justice Department is prosecuting five recently stumbled-​upon cases of illegal voting.

The Washington Times reports that the fraudsters include a Ukrainian mother and daughter, a Jamaican woman, and a Colombian man “who had been deported three times [and who] stole and lived under the identity” of an American citizen.

“I don’t think five cases is evidence of a systems-​wide problem,” says Omar Nourelden of Common Cause. Surely too few to justify investigations or voting requirements that might curb voter fraud if only there were any.

One wonders how journalists like John Fund found material for investigative works like Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, published in 2004, or Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote, published in 2021.

The story quoting Nourelden mentions the Department of Government Efficiency’s referral of 57 cases of illegal aliens voting in the 2024 election. So that’s more than five recent examples. And DOGE isn’t done yet.

Willful negligence in conduct of elections is part of the problem. Specific fraud by specific persons is part of the problem.

Nourelden and others object to voter ID. They also criticize as invasive the new efforts by DOGE to find evidence of fraud, that rarity of our political life. (Of course, non-​DOGE government personnel already have access to the voting and registration records.)

If there’s no big problem, DOGE won’t find a big problem. Let it hunt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law Voting

Letting Noncitizens Vote?

illegal alien, voting, citizen, democracy, elections,

“All of us want to make sure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson told NBC’s Meet the Press before last year’s election. She assured the national audience that she and other Secretaries of State were following the law and “ensuring that only valid votes are counted in our states. 

“We are doing all that we can and more to ensure — as the facts show in all of our states — that only U.S. citizens are voting.”

Problem is, Secretary Benson did not ensure that only U.S. citizens voted in Michigan. Under her stewardship, we now know that noncitizens did indeed vote. 

Last November, a Chinese student at the University of Michigan registered and voted. The reason we know this is that the foreign student apparently thought better of it and asked officials for his ballot back. 

Too late, though, for Haoxiang Gao’s vote had already been counted. Last week, Gao missed a court hearing and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. (Will Beijing send him back to stand trial?)

Since that one, lone, incredibly rare, don’t‑worry-your-pretty-little-head-about-it incident, officials have discovered another 15 votes cast by noncitizens. 

Also last week in Michigan, House Joint Resolution B was defeated. This measure would have clarified only citizens as eligible voters, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to vote. Democrats, including Secretary Benson (now a candidate for governor), opposed it fiercely. 

Yet, you guessed it, something else happened last week: Americans for Citizen Voting-​Michigan filed an initiative petition to place the Citizen Only Voting Amendment, passed overwhelmingly so far in 14 states, on the ballot in the Great Lakes State. Polling back in January showed 82 percent of likely voters favor the measure. 

“Leaving holes in the process that easily allow noncitizens to vote disenfranchises citizens,” said Kurt O’Keefe, the committee’s treasurer. “We need to make sure that only U.S. citizens can vote in our elections. This initiative does the job.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

Note: I’m the national chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law Voting

Trump to Save Elections?

voting, ballot, democracy, elections

“Election fraud,” said the president. “You’ve heard the term? This will end it, hopefully.” 

The “This” being an Executive Order dated March 25, 2025, entitled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.”

Interestingly, the opening unfavorably compares the American ways of voting with foreign nations. 

“In tabulating votes, Germany and Canada require use of paper ballots  counted in public by local officials,” the order explains, “which substantially reduces the number of disputes as compared to the American patchwork of voting methods that can lead to basic chain-​of-​custody problems.” The document adds that “countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-​in voting to those unable to vote in person and do not count late-​arriving votes.”

“It is the policy of my Administration to enforce [2 U.S.C. 7 and 3 U.S.C. 1] and require that votes be cast and received by the election date established in law,” Trump’s order states.

Well, California might have to start reporting the results of congressional races in under a month.

More consequently, the EO directs “the Secretary of Homeland Security” and “the Secretary of State” to “ensure that State and local officials have … access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered.”

The exact opposite policy from Biden’s refusal to help those seeking to enforce citizen-​only voting policies.

In full disclosure, as chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, I helped eight states pass Citizen Only Voting Amendments last November — and six states previously. This year, South Dakota’s legislature has already placed an amendment on the 2026 ballot and, yesterday, Kansas did likewise. 

Democrats continue to push for non-​citizen voting, which liberal courts in California and Vermont have upheld for cities, and to oppose these state amendments. But last week, New York State’s highest (and quite liberal) court struck down New York City’s noncitizen voting ordinance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law partisanship

Pennsylvania Steal

Pennsylvania

We must hope that a Democratic effort in Pennsylvania to steal the election for U.S. senator has indeed been thwarted. A new state supreme court ruling with its concurring opinions is definitive.

Problem is, a previous ruling from the same court had already been definitive.

Yet not only have election officials been counting unsigned or undated or improperly dated mail-​in ballots in an effort to rescue incumbent Democrat Bob Casey from defeat at the hands of his Republican challenger, Dave McCormick, via a rejiggering recount, at least some of the election officials breaking the law weren’t even bothering to try to obscure the effort with an “Aw geez, this is perfectly compatible with a reasonable interpretation of election rules and the supreme court ruling” fig leaf.

In Bucks County, county commissioners voted 2 – 1 to proceed with an attempted election-​stealing despite the advice of their own counsel.

Bad as this is, get this: Diane Ellis-​Marseglia, one of the two Democratic commissioners who determined that it was okay to count bad ballots, announced that she didn’t care about whether she was violating the law. Even though her job is to apply it, not to flout it with revolutionary (or corrupt insider) fervor.

“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime they want,” she said. “So for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention to it.”

Attention has been paid. We hope it’s enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law Voting

Feds Push Noncitizen Voting

Democrats, machine, voting, elections, democracy, immigration

Two states are in trouble with the federal government, which is in trouble with them.

Florida is suing the feds because the Sunshine State needs the cooperation of the federal government to check the status of certain persons on its voter rolls.

Florida is bound by law to maintain accurate registration rolls. The federal government is bound by law to cooperate with requests from state and local governments for the information required to fully assess whether a person on the rolls has the right to vote and to be registered to vote.

But when Florida asked Citizenship and Immigration Services for just this kind of information, the USCIS balked.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is suing Virginia to prevent that state from cleaning up its own voter rolls. 

Virginia Governor Youngkin castigates the federal action as “an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine to remove noncitizens from voter rolls — a process that starts with someone declaring themselves a noncitizen and then registering to vote.”

Power Line plausibly suggests that what’s happening here is that the politicized, misnamed Justice Department regards the votes of noncitizens as most likely to be votes for Democratic candidates. So why not discard established law and established procedures if this would help tilt elections in favor of Democrats?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts