Senate Republicans Moving to Ban Federal Funds for Cities and States That Let Non-Citizens Vote
“if states and localities do let those who are not U.S. citizens to vote in elections, they shouldn’t get U.S. citizen taxpayer money”
The city council in New York recently voted to allow 800,000 non-citizens to vote in local elections, a move many people believe is a test run for the bigger goal of letting all illegal immigrants vote.
Now Senate Republicans are pushing back by crafting legislation that would bar cities and states from receiving federal funds if they do this.
John Solomon reports at Just the News:
Republicans move to ban federal funds to states, cities that allow non-citizens to vote
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is leading a coalition of Republicans in Congress to sponsor legislation that would ban federal funding to states or localities that allow foreigners to vote in U.S. elections.
The new legislation, dubbed the Protecting Our Democracy by Preventing Foreign Citizens from Voting Act, was introduced after many liberal municipalities from San Francisco to New York have moved in 2021 to allow non-citizens to cast ballots in local elections
“It’s ridiculous that states are allowing foreign citizens to vote,” Rubio said. “However, if states and localities do let those who are not U.S. citizens to vote in elections, they shouldn’t get U.S. citizen taxpayer money.”
The measure is being cosponsored by GOP Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Kennedy, of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida and James Lankford, R-Oklahoma.
Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., plans to introduce companion legislation in the House.
“Voting in this country is a right that should solely be limited to American citizens. Allowing non-citizens or illegal immigrants to vote, even if only in state or local elections, gives foreign nationals influence on some of the most important decisions impacting our families, our rights, and our representation in government,” Duncan said.
Mike Miller of RedState notes that this isn’t going anywhere as long as Democrats are still in charge:
Simply, the federal legislation would bar federal funds from any state or local government that allows illegal aliens and other “foreign citizens” to vote in any federal, state, or local election, and requires all state and local government to certify they do not allow foreign citizens to vote when applying for federal funding.
If the bill passes and is signed into law by the president — neither of those will happen until Biden is out of the White House and Republicans regain control of both chambers of Congress (see: “2022 midterms,” “2024 presidential election”) — let the cheating begin.
Make that “let the cheating continue.” Incidentally, here’s a hot tip for the Democrat Party:
The Democrats’ belief that Hispanic Americans will dutifully line up for decades and overwhelmingly vote Democrat — as have Black voters for more than six decades —is a pipe dream at best, delusional denial at worst. As I recently reported, Hispanic voters are not only abandoning the Democrat Party in favor of Republican candidates, in droves; the degree of abandonment has dramatically increased since 2018.
Democrats are constantly looking for ways to make it impossible for Republicans to win elections. It’s good to see Republicans actually trying to do something to stop them for a change.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Shouldn’t be hard since eit violated Title 8
Whee. This is a sequel to the Repeal Obamacare episode of Republican Failure Theater (TM).
Someone else can have my tickets – I saw this show already.
Marco is trying to rehabilitate himself for 2022 after all his RINO gang of 8 Hispandering. Rick Scott is tagging along for the ride. The base in Florida is fed up with both of them.
Forget about the Gang of 8. He is now a member of McConnell’s Gang of 19. What a skunk this guy has been from the very beginning.
BTW, Cruz isn’t looking so hot either. He absolutely caved on the Russia sanctions over the Nordstream pipeline (cut a deal on McConnell’s first round of BBB that passed) and now is sending out feelers (gimme money) about challenging Trump and DeSantis in 2024. Claims he is entitled to the nomination because he came in second in 2016 and that’s how it works in the GOP. Another skunk.
I had hopes for Cruz. Oh well.
Cruz was my man going into the 2016 primaries. But he panicked as soon as Trump entered the race quickly revealing who he really was. To this day, I am surprised how easy it was to not like Cruz.
He has no business running for president. Had he worked on building his conservative credentials by actually being an effective senator, maybe it would be different. He should have been Trump’s right hand man for four years but he decided to be a one-man grandstanding specialist and accomplished absolutely nothing as a senator.
For him to now be thinking that he deserves to be the next candidate over Trump and DeSantis tells me what I’ve believed since 2016: Cruz has zero political instincts. He should instead be running for governor of Texas and getting something done. But no. He has become a cog in McConnell’s machine. Maybe the next “gang” member should another squish vote be needed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s like I say, were the Republicans to hold all 100 Senate seats, they would find a way to lose by one vote.
What? There is literally nothing you say here that is even close to reality (barring your own turn on Cruz). Cruz did NOT spend President Trump’s presidency “grandstanding” and doing nothing for Texans. What in the world are you talking about? What can any one senator do for their state besides bring home to their state the taxpayer pork from every other state (which is NOT a good thing)? What do you expect from your own two Senators (and do you get it?)? What have your senators done for you? For your state? List all the marvelous accomplishments so we can best see what a slacker Cruz is by your estimation.
What “gang” member do you imagine Cruz was? He was NOT a member of the Gang of Eight amnesty freaks. He was not a member of any “gang” that I can think of offhand. So what do you mean? Specifically? What “gang” do you mean?
What has Cruz “squish” voted on? Name one thing. Seriously. Name one thing that Cruz has voted for that Trump or you or I wouldn’t have voted for; likewise, name one thing that Cruz has voted against that Trump or you or I wouldn’t have voted against.
Do you even know what is going on?
Rubio reminds me of someone in a cheap sci-fi movie who is in suspended animation, and wakes out periodically to mouth a few things.
He’s useless, and hogging a crucial senate seat.
I have long thought Rubio is corrupt and fake as hell, but he is not “hogging” a “crucial Senate seat” (whatever that means). Who do you imagine would be better in Florida for Senate? I live here, and so far, no one is even in sight let alone ready to run against/primary Rubio.
Do you live here? In Florida? Who would you suggest run for this “hogged” and “crucial” senate seat that Rubio occupies? Oh, right, nobody. What is “crucial” about this Florida Senate seat in your view? And “crucial” to what? Crucial how? To whom?
What does this comment of yours even mean? All it says to me is that you know nothing about Florida, about the U.S. Senate, or about an individual Senator’s ability to do anything on his own. You know that a senator is not a president, right? And you know that even a president of these United States is not king, right?
You’d probably be happier if you took in and totally understood how our Constitutional Republic works.
Fuzzy, you need to figure out how things work when our Constitutional Republic DOESN’T work. You keep trying to forge some kind of Republican “coalition” ignoring the Uniparty reality. You are trapped in your personal kabuki theater maze.
I know you believe I am naive but I have first hand political experience. I’ve worked in five Republican political campaigns. In Massachusetts of all places. It seems to me that maybe YOU don’t know how politics works. Today, it doesn’t. Trump forced the masks to drop and you missed it..
Cruz has not accomplished a single thing in politics. He may be the best constitutional lawyer ever but he doesn’t know a damn thing about how politics work. You have to build a consensus which means making friends and persuading others. Cruz is in the wrong business. He just barely squeaked by to win re-election against Beto O’Rourke IN TEXAS!!! And he thinks he can be president? He doesn’t make friends and doesn’t understand how to read the landscape. He really believes he can challenge Trump? Trump AND DeSantis? The only two guys who are even in the game? At least DeSantis seems to know that he needs Trumps support to win. Trump and DeSantis are two people who ooze of accomplishment. He want to be the candidate because it is his turn?
Come on Fuzzy, start making sense.
I mean to be fair to Cruz, he at least has more of a chance than pieces of crap like Pence that are already being pushed by RINO Inc.
“Whee. This is a sequel to the Repeal Obamacare episode of Republican Failure Theater (TM).”
Which optics are better?
1) Making noise even though you know you won’t win (Infrastructure Bills)
2) Making noise because you know it’s safe you won’t win (Obamacare, carry reciprocity)
3) Looking like tits on a boar and not even bothering to make noise (impeachment, 25th Amendment)?
And Biden just can’t wait to sign this one.
This won’t work. Maybe going forward, but past commitments will need to be honored.
The problem is the system is broke. The Federales take our money through the IRS, and dole it back if our spending plans are good enough.
My suggestion… pick a department at a time, say Housing and Urban Development. Give the state block grants, with understanding the state will raise taxes while the Feds refund the amount raised in taxes.
I would say we don’t need a law, we need a Constitutional amendment, but reality has already shown that Circuit judges, Appellate Courts and SCOTUS would still interpret it to mean illegals can still vote.
We’d never get the Amendment.
America is broken beyond repair. We have to face that. Secession is our only chance to be great again – for the next 200 years, at least.
You can’t secede from locusts. Locusts just follow you.
You can’t secede from cockroaches. Cockroaches never die.
Theater at best. Now if you really want to do something then pass a ‘head tax’. Each State taxed $600 for each person in their census count. Each State would collect and remit the amount due just as with the federal fuel taxes. Then use the amounts collected to reinforce SS/Medicare trust funds. That would be a tough vote for d/prog who always accuse r and the right of wanting to throw grandma off a cliff.
How do you tax states? Congress can impose a $600 poll tax on people, so long as it applies equally to everyone in the USA, but the states can’t be held liable if a person doesn’t pay.
Yes indeed it’s an individual tax and the States can then be responsible for collection and will collect it from individual people and remit to the feds based on their own preferred method of collection; property tax, sales tax, income tax or direct legislative funding without new revenue. For reluctant States then simply sunset current program authoritarian rules for federal funding that States participate in and deduct the amount the States fail to remit based on the census.
States cannot be “made responsible” for collecting federal taxes, any more than they can be “made responsible” for enforcing any other federal law. And it is unconstitutional for congress to coerce states into doing so, by cutting funding that they depend on. This is not controversial; it’s black letter law that the supreme court has affirmed over and over.
Ok you convinced me. Of course this also means that the feds can’t conscript or coerce the States into setting up and running an election system that the State legislature didn’t pass.
No, the states don’t have to hold congressional elections if they don’t want to. If they choose not to send anyone to represent them in Washington, that’s their stupid choice, and when laws they don’t like are therefore passed without their having any say in the matter that will be their own fault and they will not be able to complain.
You can ‘tax’ states by withholding federal funds.
Not if it’s coercive.
They’re not illegal immigrants, they’re undocumented community members.
Undocumented voters exempted from Covid requirements.
They are neither. They are legal residents, which means they are citizens of their cities — that’s what “citizen” means.
What would be illegal is this proposed legislation. Congress, even when acting unambiguously, cannot cut off funding from states in order to coerce them to do as Congress wants.
Noncitizen legal residents are not citizens of the cities they reside in, they are denizens of those urban areas. Calling the citizens is an error.
Wrong. That’s what the word “citizen” means.
“Resident” is NOT legally interchangeable with “citizen”. They DO NOT mean the same thing.
Acting like a ‘legal resident’ is magically the same as a ‘citizen’ simply demonstrates that you’re a moron.
Repeating your ignorance doesn’t make it true. “Citizen” means an inhabitant of a city. That is what the word means. That’s why it’s got “citi” in it. It comes from the Old French Citeain, from Cite, a city.
Some times being pedantic is without purpose merely serves to be annoying. Of course you are right Milhouse. Try to keep up. One word is being used for people who live there, and the other is used for people who have clear legal citizenship, like citizens of the country eligible for a passport.
The people in question are citizens of New York City, but not of the USA. They are legal residents of the USA, but not citizens. That’s why it makes sense to let them vote in NYC elections, but not in USA ones.
This won’t work. Maybe going forward, but past commitments will need to be honored.
The problem is the system is broke. The Federales take our money through the IRS, and dole it back if our spending plans are good enough.
My suggestion… pick a department at a time, say Housing and Urban Development. Give the state block grants, with understanding the state will raise taxes while the Feds refund the amount raised in taxes.
This is unconstitutional. Congress can put whatever conditions it likes on new funding; since the states have the option of turning it down if they don’t like the conditions. But it cannot cut off or reduce existing funding, if that would coerce the states to do what it wants.
It can make reductions to funding only if they are small enough that the states have a real choice whether to comply or eat the cut; in that case the cut is not coercive but only persuasive, and the supreme court says that’s allowed. But any cut big enough that the state can’t afford to refuse is coercive and therefore unconstitutional. Obviously cutting off all funding would be massively over that limit.
Congress can decide to sunset any program they want to. One Congress can’t bind a future Congress. Since that’s obviously true then all Congress must do is sunset the existing program(s), rewrite the participation requirements and invite States to participate or not in the new program. To suggest otherwise would mean that no federal program open to State participation once enacted would ever be repealed.
What Congress can’t do is change the participation requirements of an existing program, where that change amounts to coercion. That much is exactly correct. Nothing, other than political concerns, prohibits a future Congress from reviewing existing programs, deciding to terminate them and then creating new participation requirements for a new program.
Yes, Congress can terminate programs, for everyone equally. And yes, it can create completely new programs with new terms, that are unrelated in any way to the old ones. But that’s not what you’re proposing. What you’re proposing is a transparent fraud on the constitution, and the courts would see through it and not allow it. So long as the motive is to coerce the states, it violates the tenth amendment.
The CT doesn’t get to divine the intent of a facially neutral change by a current Congress deciding to depart from the policy choices of a previous Congress. To do so would effectively disenfranchise current voters by eliminating their ability to make changes. That is the very real consequence of your argument.
Congress could vote to end social security tomorrow. Once Biden signs off then that legislation becomes law. Social security wouldn’t exist. What prevents that is the lack of political support for that action and the threat of severe electoral consequences. A simple substitute language that was truly transparent would, as you state, likely be challenged and successfully so. Hopefully we are smart enough to make revisions to both the participation requirements for States as well as the goals and performance metrics of the programs selected for termination and replacement.
Ending program x for a valid reason; the program hasn’t succeeded despite decades and an increasing budget is legitimate. Including updated participation requirements for States within the replacement program is legitimate. This would work and at some point will have to based on budgetary constraints. Inflation and rising interest rates will do more than anything our lukewarm political class would propose.
They would have to be truly different programs. Not just a replacement with the extra terms in it.
One easy way is just revoke the duplicate programs and replace with a block grant to States with updated participation requirements. It’s really not hard to do it theoretically. It’s extremely unlikely from a political standpoint with entrenched interests fighting tooth and nail in opposition.
“The CT doesn’t get to divine the intent of a facially neutral change by a current Congress deciding to depart from the policy choices of a previous Congress. “
Have you told the CT this? I think the courts are willing to divine the reasons for this law or that law and decide the motives here were racists and those there were pure as the driven snow.
Milwaukee,
See the decision in Shelby which struck down DoJ pre clearance approval for State changes to election laws. Just one example among many but one that directly touches on the point here; neutral application doesn’t equal bad intentions and plaintiffs must show actual harm not theoretical harm.
Chief, Shelby doesn’t say courts can’t look at a legislature’s intent. It doesn’t even say Congress can’t do so. All it says is that for Congress to decide that a state legislature’s intent is racist, it needs to cite actual facts to back that up, and those facts can’t be half a century old. The court said that by all means Congress could require racist states to pre-clear their election laws with DOJ, but first it must establish that those states are racist, and in the case at hand Congress had simply not bothered to do so. In declaring those states to be racist without any evidence Congress was exhibiting the very same bigotry of which it accused those states.
Milhouse,
re Shelby, I am missing the distinction between our views on Shelby. At root Shelby holds that:
1. A suit to block a State election law must demonstrate actual current harm, not a theoretical one
2. Must have a plaintiff; for instance Shelby has been cited in the voter ID requirement cases where no plaintiff who was unable to procure an ID was a named or produced
3. Ended the multi decade DoJ oversight and pre clearance regime in mostly Southern States and a few Northern Counties as well
That’s the meat of Shelby and a few more recent successor cases where States prevailed v d/prog lawfare. Could Congress exercise it’s right to assert itself in Congressional elections? Sure but that’s another set of facts. Until they do so the d/prog lawfare in elections is largely curtailed other than as a delaying tactic, at least when State Legislatures choose to fight which is another issue….
Yes, Milhouse you are correct here. This ground has been covered with the whole sanctuary city funding thing. Your previous explanations convinced me. My take is burn the house down. Reduce Federal taxes and eliminate the department of Housing and Urban Development. Subsidiarity means a problem should be handled by the smallest unit of government possible. If the city of Milwaukee can’t handle it’s housing, then the county. If a county in metro area can’t handle housing, then form a coalition of counties. It they can’t handle it, then the state. Housing and urban development aren’t in the Constitution, or at least not enough to justify a cabinet department. Same for Education.
Yes. Very much this. But this should be done regardless of whether cities choose to let aliens vote. It should be done because it’s worth doing, not to punish certain cities. And that would be perfectly constitutional.
Here it is. Why? Why should residents who are not citizens be allowed to vote in local elections? This is a change in the way things have been done. Are they out protesting, demanding to vote in local elections?
Some perceive this as a slippery slope, which will facilitate and enable voting in Federal elections by non-citizens. Many states and cities have done a very poor job and maintaining voter roles with one set of rules. Creating a second set of voter roles will further overwhelm currently inept administrations.
This is a substantial change in the way things have been done. Such a change should not be made without real good reasons.
Why should they be allowed to vote? Because the city wants to let them, and because it’s only fair, since they pay city taxes and have to obey city laws, so they should have a say in setting and spending those taxes, and in enacting those laws.
There is no slippery slope; cities already deal with voters who can only be given one ballot and not another, at primaries. Even if you had state and city elections at the same time, it would be no harder to give city-only voters such a ballot than it is to ensure people only get the primary ballot of their party.
If non-citizens can vote, next step will be mail-in votes from Mexico for those who are planning to move here in the future.
I like that idea. But Let’s expand to a worldwide vote. Go Global as they say now and get Dominion to modify the algorithm. /s.
Next, next would be mail-in ballots from China.
That would be a foolish thing for a city to do; but if a city should ever decide it wants to, it would be none of your business, nor Congress’s.
If somehow a mistake is made in the ballots provided to non citizens so that they can also vote in a Congressional race and the margin is lower than the number of these faulty ballots then what?
For that matter if people outside the State, Congressional district or City don’t have a legitimate interest in these elections or how they are conducted then shouldn’t campaign funds be limited to the people who live there? Saying this isn’t the business of any outsiders is appealing but too simplistic.
1. That can’t happen in NYC, because state and federal elections are never held on the same day as city elections. Someone registered as a “city only” voter would not get any ballot at all at a state or federal election.
2. So let’s discuss some other city, that does have its elections on the same day as a federal or state election. Yes, theoretically a poll worker might accidentally give someone the wrong ballot, but that’s something that can already happen anyway, at primaries. If a registered Republican comes in, and the machine says to give her a Republican ballot, but the poll worker isn’t paying attention and gives them the same Democrat ballot that he’s been handing out all day, and the voter doesn’t point out the error, then at the end of the day there will be a discrepancy in the ballot reconciliation. That table will have one too many Republican ballots left over and one too few Democrat ones, and the scanners will have recorded one too many Democrat ballots and one too few Republican ones.
Small discrepancies do occasionally happen, because no system is perfect, but they’re hardly ever big enough to affect the result. If they are, then the courts have to decide whether to order a new vote in that district.
The same thing would presumably happen if a city-only voter were accidentally given a state or federal ballot, or vice versa.
What do you mean by campaign funds? If you mean city-provided funds, they are already limited to registered candidates, who of course live in the city. If you mean people outside the city should be barred from contributing to candidates, or from campaigning on their own accounts, that would violate the first amendment.
Not to split hairs but a very large part of your prior point was based on the principle of ‘nunya’ aka it’s none of your business what the City or County or State of X do in their elections. For ‘nunya’ to hold then the inputs and outputs of the policy must be constrained to the people making the ‘nunya’ argument.
For the most part I would agree that a given State and their political subdivisions should, consistent with the Constitution, make their own decisions without interference. The caveat is when the consequences or foreseeable consequences of the decisions spill over to others. In this case absent clear and unrelenting safeguards there is a foreseeable consequence in which the impact spreads beyond that political entity.
If a neighbor lets trash build up inside their house and attracts rats it doesn’t matter that it’s their house because their choices now have foreseeable consequences; rat infestation in the neighborhood with spread of disease borne by the rats. Entities in one State can’t harm those in other States and then be absolved on the basis of ‘nunya’.
“That would be a foolish thing for a city to do; but if a city should ever decide it wants to, it would be none of your business, nor Congress’s.”
Yes, and no. For example, on immigration the Catholic Church teaches that all individuals have the right to immigrate, but that right is not absolute. All nations have the right to control their borders and immigration, but that right is not absolute. Similar case here. Yes, states have the right to do foolish things, but that right isn’t absolute. Nor may states interfere, but that right is not absolute. For example, some states pass laws which prevent local governments from having more restrictive gun laws that the state gives. The rationale is it prevents a person who drives from Arvada, Colorado through Denver, Colorado to Aurora, Colorado, from violating the more stringent laws in Denver while in transit.
Once a gift is given, it belongs to the recipient, unless conditions were set with the giving and acceptance of the gift. That taxpayer money supports people of illegal immigration status bothers some is not unreasonable. Residents who are not legal citizens voting is likewise disturbing.
At what point may the majority say to a city…”You’re no longer acting like a responsible city. Your charter is revoked, and the governance is in the hands of the county.” Or to a state “You have messed things up beyond belief. You are now a territory, and all office holders are unemployed. Congress will select administrators until local elections can be held, and all y’all can start over from scratch.”?
Certainly in the area of finances.
Huh? What on earth does any of this have to do with a city deciding who gets to vote in its elections? How is that any of the business of anyone outside that city?
Your position seems to be cities can do whatever they want and it is nobodies business but their own. The counter is, they have the right to do what they want, but it is not absolute. Examples were given, The Church on immigration, and gun control laws. Try to keep up. Cities are creations of the state, and maybe reigned in.
Didn’t the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s teach us we have the right to poke around in other states and cities business?
Again, what on earth does any of this have to do with a city deciding who gets to vote in its elections? How is that any of the business of anyone outside that city? Answer the question, please, rather than dragging in red herrings that have no possible relevance to the question.
Milhouse: I meant those as illustrations since you were being unusually tedious and pedantic. Come on man, going to claim “resident” and “citizen” have the same meaning? throwing the French at us. What’s up with that?
Milhouse—why would we do this thing we have not done before? Because we can and it isn’t any of your business isn’t an answer, but it’s the only one you give. Just because doesn’t work.
If all you got is “Because we can and it isn’t any business of anybody what we do.” then you are missing your usual insightful clarity.
Who really believes they will do it?
Meh.
The bastards NEVER do this sort of thing when they’re in power and stand a chance of actually succeeding.
I’ll let this showboat float on by, thanks.
FJB