Fri, Feb 03, 2012

Advertisement

Advertisement

Short Relief: Portland shouldn't dilute the right to vote

Last year, state Sen. Justin Alfond, D-Portland, sponsored LD 1195, an act to allow non-citizen residents to vote in municipal elections. Under the bill a municipality could “provide by ordinance for a person residing within its borders who is not a citizen of the United States to vote in a municipal election.”

Alfond explained that during his campaign he met people who were unable to vote for him because they were not citizens of the United States. He sponsored the bill to be inclusive, to give more people a voice and to give foreigners an incentive to become citizens so that they can vote in national elections as well as in local ones.

A majority of the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee recommended that the act ought not to pass, and on May 28, 2009, the House and Senate accepted that recommendation.

On July 2, the Portland City Charter Commission held its first public hearing. At least two members of the pubic urged that the commission recommend changing the City Charter to expand voting rights for immigrants. The commission debated non-citizen voting at its Feb. 25 meeting.

Some commissioners were concerned about limiting the vote to U.S. citizens because of how difficult it is to become a citizen. (The requirements include the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English; a basic understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government; good moral character and the willingness to support and defend the United States and the Constitution.) Others were concerned that expanding voting rights might not be legal.

At its March 11 meeting, the commission voted 7-5 against a motion “that non-citizen, legal residents of Portland be allowed to vote in municipal elections.” The minority argued that allowing non-citizens to vote would make for a more representative, inclusive, engaged and democratic city.

The Maine Chapter of the League of Young Voters, which Alfond helped launch, picked up the ball and circulated a petition to get the question on the November ballot. League activists described the effort as “quite simply an issue of taxation without representation,” and the opportunity for Portland to be the “anti-Arizona.”

On Aug. 23, the City Council approved for inclusion on the November ballot the League’s citizen-initiated charter amendment to allow “legal immigrants who are residents of Portland and 18 yeas old or older ... to register to vote and vote in municipal elections."

The city’s corporation counsel opined that the proposal was an “amendment,” not a “revision” requiring Charter Commission review, because it did not alter the “fundamental structure” of the municipal government. He also opined that the amendment was not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, the Maine Constitution or general laws.

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly require that people be U.S. citizens in order to vote in federal elections. It makes eligibility to vote a matter for the individual states to regulate, subject to certain limitations.

Maine’s Constitution provides that U.S. citizens who are at least 18 years old and reside in Maine may vote for governor, senator and representative in the town where they reside. It does not explicitly address eligibility to vote in municipal elections.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006-2008 American Community Survey Official Estimates, Portland has a population of nearly 63,600. More than 52,000, or 75.5 percent, are 18 years or older. Nearly 6,200 or 12.5 percent, are foreign-born. The survey does not identify how many of those are naturalized American citizens. (The 2000 data indicated nearly 4,900 foreign-born, of whom more than 3,200, or about 66 percent, were not citizens.)

Generally speaking, you have to belong to an organization in order to vote for its leadership and have a say in how it is run. Criteria for membership vary according to the organization, but generally they bear some relation to the nature and purpose of the organization and they ensure a certain amount of commitment to it. That way both the organization and the member benefit from their association.

America is a big, diverse, contentious country. There are times when it seems that we Americans don’t have a lot in common, that there isn’t much that unites us. We don’t all belong to one ethnic group. We come from different national origins. We don’t all speak the same language. We don’t share the same religion. We don’t have a lot of common history. We have different political views.

What we do share is a special form of government. The elemental feature of that form of government is the vote. It defines who we are as a people and distinguishes us from much of the rest of the world. It enables us to peacefully change our leadership. To have a voice in making the laws that prescribe what our government expects from us and what it provides for us.

It is worth a few requirements, including citizenship.

Comments

aagnew says:

I appreciate the information that Halsey Frank and Tony Payne have provided here. They do a good job of laying out the background which is a great service.

What I don't see is that their conclusion fits the background they have provided. I see reasons in their writings to expand the right to vote to resident non-citizens rather than curtail it.

Most US citizens get their voting rights "free" by virtue of the geography of their birth but by no other virtue or requirement. They need demonstrate no knowledge, commitment or standard of involvement in our political process. They pay no additional taxes. Why are they more deserving of the right to vote?

I am sure that Mr. Frank and Mr. Payne believe deeply in the values of hard work and community involvement as strongly as they disapprove of entitlements. Yet in this case, they seem to support the concept of the voting entitlement over the concept of rewarding and appreciating the hard work of community involvement and engagement.

While Mr. Frank seems to question whether our communities would benefit from the economic and political involvement of resident non-citizens, Mr. Payne seems genuinely grateful for that involvement yet each comes to the same conclusion that resident non-citizens should not be allowed to vote.

Also curious to me is Mr. Frank's suggestion that non-citizen residents have less of a stake in the "organization", the city in this case, than citizen residents. All residents have a strong stake by virtue of their "commitment": actual residence in the city of Portland is about the strongest commitment and basis for shared interest I can think of.

My instinct is that we would improve our communities and economies by welcoming greater involvement and participation from resident non-citizens and that our ultimate goal would be to help non-citizens become citizens whether before or after they vote in municipal elections. But I do agree with Mr. Payne that non-resident non-citizens should not be allowed to vote in municipal elections. If we do value involvement, wouldn't extending the voting franchise send the right message to non-citizens that we actually do value them in our communities?

If we are to support barriers to participation in the economic and political life of our communities, I would like to understand better how we benefit from those barriers. My hunch is that they are holding us back.

(permalink)

tpayne says:

Maine desperately needs to get and retain new residents, particularly young people. The wave of immigrants that have come to the Portland area will have tremendous positive outcomes when we look back over generations to this period of time. Their current contributions are no less important as they help grow the economy and contribute to our diversity. No matter from what part of the world they come, immigrants have made the first and most courageous step - they left their homeland for a better life.

That does not suggest, however, that their journey is over. The right to vote comes with responsibilities. The fact that we require aspiring citizens to know more about our government than most any native born American may seem daunting but it is a process that forces foreign-born citizens to understand the foundation of the system from which we all benefit. Without that grounding, it seems that political groups could easily exploit the newly arrived just as the ward healers of Tammany Hall rounded up votes to build a political dynasty that served political rather than public interests.

Another benefit of citizenship is the acceleration of assimilation - the speed with which new residents become integrated into society. When you have to pass a test, you study so you can pass. That has tremendous value and will help develop a new generation of entrpreneurs and civic leaders.

What I have yet to hear in quantifiable numbers is a demand from our new immigrant neghbors that they have the right to vote. Right now, it seems only some youthful grassroots activists are insisting on the change. In addition, does the right to vote also carry with it the implication of serving in public office or in the military? There's more to this than just the sense of being inclusive.

Finally, if citizenship were not required for voting, then why should residency or minimum age be required? I know that may seem absurd. If you don't have to be a U.S. citizen, then why not let the residents of Westbrook or South Portland cast their ballots in Portland. As a region we share economic and political interests which gives similar standing to those outside Portland. A for youth, middle and high school students probably have a more current understanding of civics than adults and almost as great economic power as consumers.

Ultimately, it's the citizens of Portland who will decide. Good luck.

(permalink)

eabeem says:

It worries me when Halsey Frank and Tony Payne make sense to me. I am all for lowering the voting age to allow middle school and high scholl kids to vote though. Keep thinking.

(permalink)

You must register or login to post a comment.
Copyright 2012 Sun Media Group