Is California Registering Non Citizens To Vote
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| Proposition N: San Francisco Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections |
|---|
 |
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 a Approved |
| Topic: |
| Local education |
| Related articles |
| Local education on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California ballot measures Local charter amendments on the ballot |
| See also |
| San Francisco, California |
A charter amendment to allow non-citizen parents or guardians to vote in school board elections was on the ballot for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city's charter to allow the non-citizen parents or guardians of students who live in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in school board elections. |
| A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the requirement that only citizens are eligible to vote in any election, including school board elections. |
Aftermath
Initiative to preempt Proposition N
-
- See also: California U.S. Citizenship Required to Vote Initiative (2020)
On July 25, 2018, former U.S. Rep. Doug Ose (R-3) filed a ballot initiative for the 2020 general election to require individuals to be U.S. citizens in order to vote in California's federal, state, and local elections. However, the ballot initiative was later withdrawn. The ballot initiative would have preempted San Francisco Proposition N and blocked local governments from enacting similar ordinances in the future. Ose said the proposal had a simple premise—"I don't think noncitizens should be voting."[1]
Election results
| Proposition N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| a Yes | 203,413 | 54.39% | ||
| No | 170,570 | 45.61% | ||
-
- Election results from San Francisco Department of Elections
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[2]
| " | Shall the City allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?[3] | " |
Simplification digest
The following summary of Proposition N was provided by San Francisco's Ballot Simplification Committee:[2]
|
Fiscal impact
The following fiscal impact statement about Proposition N was provided by the San Francisco Controller:[2]
| " | City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition N: Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, there would be an additional cost, as estimated by the Department of Elections, of a minimum of $160,000 per election to print and distribute voting materials, train poll workers and separately register people who would become eligible to vote in School Board elections. Should the election take place by absentee ballot only, which would require a subsequent ordinance by the Board, costs may be reduced to approximately $110,000, in addition to any costs associated with registration processes. The amendment would permit non-citizens 18 years of age or older who have children residing in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in the elections for the School Board. The amendment would sunset on December 31, 2022, but could be extended by ordinance.[3] | " |
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[2]
- Supervisor Eric Mar
- Supervisor David Campos
- Supervisor Malia Cohen
- Supervisor Jane Kim
- Supervisor Scott Wiener
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[2]
| " | Join the San Francisco Democratic Party in STANDING UP for Proposition N: the IMMIGRANT PARENT RIGHT TO VOTE ACT! Proposition N gives all parents a voice. • It is essential that we expand parental involvement in our schools. Greater participation is a key element in raising educational achievement, especially in low-performing schools. • All parents, regardless of citizenship, will have the opportunity to become an integral part of their child's education through the voting process. • It is estimated that at least 1 out of 3 children in SF public schools has an immigrant parent. Tens of thousands of SF residents would become eligible to vote in School Board elections. Proposition N helps our students do better in school.Students of parents actively involved in schools are more likely to: • Earn higher grades and enroll in higher level programs • Attend school regularly, improve their social skills, behavior and adaptation • Graduate and go on to college Immigrant Voting has a long history in our country. • For the first 150 years of our nation's history 40 states and territories allowed immigrants to vote and even hold office. • Over the last three decades, cities and towns in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have passed laws allowing immigrants to vote. Immigrant Voting is legal. • The US Supreme Court has repeatedly said that citizenship is not required to vote. • The California Constitution protects the right of citizens to vote, but does not exclude immigrants from voting. • The California Constitution explicitly authorizes Charter cities such as SF to provide for the manner of electing school board members. Please join us in voting YES on Proposition N to give all parents a VOICE![3] | " |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[2]
- Dr. Terence Faulknere
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[2]
| " | A BAD LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL – REPEATEDLY DEFEATED AT THE POLLS – THIS ILLEGAL MEASURE CALLS FOR NON-CITIZENS TO BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTIONS: Like a bad penny, this illegal proposal in violation of the California Elections Code has already been twice defeated by increasing majorities of San Francisco electors – but keeps coming back!!!: It was defeated in 2004 and 2010. This unwise measure calls for non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote in San Francisco elections for the Board of Education. Vote "NO!" on Proposition N. This proposal seeks to even allow even illegal aliens on the way to the airport for deportation to cast their absentee ballots for Board of Education as they leave the United States of America. Needless to say, American citizens living abroad are not allowed to take part in foreign nations' board of education or other elections. It remains an open question whether at some future date the United States federal government might consider entering into formal treaties with Canada, Mexico, or other closely allied nations to allow American citizens in those countries and legal foreign aliens from those nations to vote in local board of education, city council, or other elections. These are major federal foreign policy questions…and American citizens should of course be granted equal rights with foreign citizens. Don't vote for this misguided ballot measure.[3] | " |
Media editorials
Support
- The Bay Area Reporter recommended a yes vote for Proposition N.[4]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Thousands of parents in San Francisco have no direct say in how their children are educated because they aren't US citizens. Prop. N is a bold idea that could have national implications: Why not let parents and legal guardians of all kids, citizen or not, vote in School Board races? It's just a short-term trial – the law would expire after three School Board elections unless the supervisors decided to renew it. Vote yes."[5]
- San Francisco Examiner : "Sponsored by Supervisor Eric Mar, the measure is meant to increase voter participation and parental involvement in the SFUSD. It has the potential to also address the achievement gap for Latino students, among others, by getting more parents involved in their children's education and in the school district. Prop. N would cost a minimum $160,000 per election in voting materials, training for poll workers and voter registration, unless done by absentee ballot, in which case it would cost about $120,000, according to the City Controller. It's a worthwhile investment to encourage engagement among families who might not otherwise feel like they have much of a stake in The City."[6]
Opposition
- San Francisco Chronicle : "The California Constitution restricts the franchise to citizens, so Proposition N is legally dubious and would most likely wind up in court. In addition, San Franciscans rightly believe that the privilege of voting should be restricted to U.S. citizens. This is both sensible and just. In a democracy, restricting the franchise to people with citizenship serves to enforce social cohesion and to encourage immigrants to endure the naturalization process. It should remain that way, especially since non-citizen parents have many ways to be actively involved in their children's education in San Francisco. We also urge a "no" vote on Proposition F."[7]
Path to the ballot
-
- See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California
This measure was put on the ballot through a 10-1 vote of the San Francisco board of supervisors.[2]
"Yes" votes
The following supervisors voted in favor of putting Proposition N on the ballot:[2]
- Eric Mar - District 1
- Aaron Peskin - District 3
- Katy Tang - District 4
- London Breed - District 5
- Jane Kim - District 6
- Norman Yee - District 7
- Scott Wiener - District 8
- David Campos - District 9
- Malia Cohen - District 10
- John Avalos - District 11
"No" votes
The following supervisors voted against putting Proposition N on the ballot:[2]
- Mark Farrell - District 2
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco non-citizens voting in school board elections Proposition N. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
- San Francisco County Elections Office website
Footnotes
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Former GOP congressman wants an official ban on 'noncitizens' voting in California," July 25, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 San Francisco Elections Office, "San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot," accessed September 26, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Bay Area Reporter,"B.A.R. election endorsements," accessed October 9, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian,"ENDORSEMENTS! The case for six progressive supes, Kim for state Senate …," accessed October 6, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner,"Examiner Endorsements: City measures," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle,"Voting should remain a privilege for adult citizens," September 6, 2016
| v•e | ||
|---|---|---|
| Counties | Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba | |
| Analysis | Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures | |
| 2021 | March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31 | |
| 2020 | March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3 | |
| 2019 | February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5 | |
| 2018 | January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6 | |
| 2017 | January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7 | |
| 2016 | January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8 | |
| 2015 | January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17 | |
| 2014 | February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4 | |
| 2013 | March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5 | |
| 2012 | February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6 | |
| 2011 | January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22 | |
| 2010 | January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2 | |
| 2009 | January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15 | |
| 2008 | February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4 | |
| 2007 | March 6 • May 7 • November 6 | |
| 2006 | March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7 | |
| Political topics | Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use | |
| Tax measures | Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes | |
 | v•e Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections | What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government | Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
Categories:
- Pages using DynamicPageList dplreplace parser function
- Local ballots, 2016
- California 2016 local ballot measures
- Local education, California, 2016
- Local measure in San Francisco, California
- Local measure in county of San Francisco, California
- Local measure, November 8, 2016
- Certified past date local ballot measures
- Approved local measure, 2016
- Local charter amendments, California, 2016
Is California Registering Non Citizens To Vote
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citizen_Voting_in_School_Board_Elections_Amendment,_Proposition_N_(November_2016)
Posted by: howardwhinford.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Is California Registering Non Citizens To Vote"
Post a Comment