RNC challenges Vermont legislation giving voting rights to non-citizens
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
EXCLUSIVE - The Republican National Committee is suing two Vermont cities over new town charters that allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
"Democrats are trying to dismantle the integrity of our elections," RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Monday. "In addition to attacking widely supported safeguards like voter ID, Democrats also want foreign citizens to vote in American elections. Republicans are fighting back on this far-left assault against election integrity -- unlike radical Democrats, we believe that our elections should be decided solely by American citizens. This is a matter of principle and we will fight in all 50 states to ensure this remains the case."
The case centers around the Vermont cities of Montpelier and Winooski, who in May had changes to their charters approved by the state's Senate that allowed non-citizens to vote in their municipal elections.
"I believe if someone wishes to be able to vote they should be a citizen," Vermont state Sen. Brian Collamore told Fox News in an interview at the time. "The Montpelier bill allows what is defined as a legal resident of the United States to be able to vote in city elections. ... If someone is here on a permanent basis, why would he or she not want to participate in the process to become a citizen?"
Republican Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the legislation in June, citing "inconsistency in election policy" across the state.
"Allowing a highly variable town-by-town approach to municipal voting creates inconsistency in election policy, as well as separate and unequal classes of residents potentially eligible to vote on local issues," Scott said in a letter to legislators.
But the governor's veto was overridden by the Senate in a 20-10 vote, with Democrats getting just enough votes to clear the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override.
Now the RNC has promised to fight back, arguing the lawsuit is part of their "ongoing fight to secure the integrity of our elections - in this specific instance, ensuring that American elections be solely decided by American citizens.
"The suit also raises important concerns about how the laws will be implemented and whether non-citizens will end up on the same voter registration lists used for state-level and federal elections," the RNC said.
Tags
Who is online
260 visitors
I don't think democrats or the left are concerned about losing the 2022 midterm election. This is all they want...to get nonn-citizens voting, which will guarantee that democrats win every election.
Which is worse? Getting non-citizens to vote or doing whatever you can to make voting difficult for certain people? Does "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" combine with "One man's fish is another man's 'poisson'" cover that?
IMO, if a person is a permanent resident of a municipality, and could even be a home-owner, I think they have every right to vote in a municipal election. What the hell does citizenship have to do with it when it comes to voting on a municipal issue that has a direct effect on the permanent resident as much as any citizen.
Only citizens have the right to vote.
Nobody is preventing legitimate voters from voting.
We wouldn't want fraud would we Buzz? Which is more secure having somebody show an ID at a polling station or letting some poll station volunteer determine if a signature on a mail-in-ballot is real?
Please point out one Republican voter law that makes "voting difficult for certain people". The voting laws apply to everyone, they don't single out a specific group of people. This is a Democratic talking point that not one damn person can answer.
So Buzz does China or Canada all non citizens to vote?
Democrats are trying desperately for one party rule. We have all seen how well that works out in places like Russia and China.
Prove it. No more BS left wing talking points. Point out the exact sections of the Republican passed laws that make it harder for anyone of a particular race to vote than anyone else. The laws apply equally to everyone. Or are you saying certain races are just inept and incompetent; and aren't able to adhere to the same rules as everyone else and need special help in order to vote?
Also, it doesn't matter what level the vote takes place at, only US citizens should have the right to vote, period. If you want non US permanent residents to have the right to vote even at the lowest level; then they must also serve jury duty. See how fast they want to register to vote then.
Since everyone is so keen on giving immigrants rights- the government should be checking how many are registered for the draft; considering it is their duty for residing within the US.
Willing to bet that the vast majority of immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) never register for the US draft.
Actually, from what I've seen and experienced here, it DOES work out pretty well, although I know it's sinful for a nation not to be like America.
All of this is based upon the idea of global citizenship and a world without borders. In a world without borders, China would have no claim on Taiwan because there would not be a China. Or a United States or Canada, for that matter. Sounds nice. But it would be a return to a purely tribal global society where charismatic ideas and people are not contained by borders.
How can someone who has touted the exquisite organizational skills of the Chinese government support unorganized and chaotic governance? Do you actually believe that dissolving the borders of the United States would make the world safer? Perhaps that pie-eyed optimism doesn't take into account what the American tribes are capable of. The American hegemony doesn't depend upon borders.
Oh bullshit. This simply isn't true and you can't prove otherwise.
And yet you respond to his comments.
Exactly where is this happening?
If that person is NOT a citizen, they DON'T have the right to vote.
The GOP’s increasingly blunt argument: It needs voting restrictions to win
FLORIDA GOP LEADERS ADMIT VOTER SUPPRESSION WAS MOTIVE BEHIND VOTER LAWS
No More Pretending: Republicans Admit Vote Restrictions Are All About Winning
Republicans Now Just Admitting They Want Fewer Americans To Vote
Republicans admit the real reason for election 'reforms' - they help Republicans win
Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain
Unless you are a dissident; religious; or run afoul of the government in any way then it is the reeducation camp for you (if you are lucky).
[deleted]
How cute. You found news articles to support your talking points. It still doesn't answer exactly where is this happening?
You should try it sometimes.
Your comment is ignorant of the reality of the purpose of the reeducation camps in China. Unfortunately the promotion of those lies is detrimental more to the rest of the world than it is for China. The only persons who are in those camps are those who are religious extremists, separatists and terrorists. You say "religious"? The vast majority of Uyghurs practice their religion freely, run their businesses, pray in their mosques, celebrate their festivals, educate their children and live their lives no different than anyone else as do all other Muslims and other ethnic minorities. The most popular religion in China is Buddhism - my wife and her family are practising Buddhists and nobody is detaining them for it.
Doesn't answer the question.
Not supposed to answer the question. Just supposed to point out some (unnamed) commenters' hypocrisy.
You mean like Lt. Col Stuart Scheller?
So reality is you can't point out exactly where is this happening (not surprise there) and you're just parroting what somebody else told you.
Still refusing to read what I wrote? Not trying to point anything out except some peoples' hypocrisy.
I read it. And you haven't shown me anything or answered my question. You simply can't point out exactly where is this happening and you're still parroting what somebody else told you.
It was and is happening in Montana and ND. Montana pass a law that would restrict Native American votes and the courts held that it was unconstitutional and overturned it in 2020. In 2021 Montana re introduced it with different wording and it will be challenged again.
North Dakota passed laws that would also restrict NA voters and were sued and had to reach a settlement with the tribes in 2020.
Here is another for South Dakota.
Over the years there have been many instances of states restricting NA voting rights.
Thank you. I'll have to read through them later.
Maybe you could teach Ozzwald how you did that.
make sure you tell all your latino acquaintances nunca votas por un republicano.
You have it wrong again. What we are telling latinos is "Los demócratas te joderán cada vez".
This lowers the value of citizenship
They want to diminish it and give residency equal status.
How about having one elected official who has the power to overturn an election? Does that diminish the value of citizenship?
How would that be done?
It's happening right now in several states.
I asked you to explain how one elected official overturns an election.
Does News Talkers let non-members comment here?
Can somebody who does not own stock in a company vote at the stockholders meeting?
As a citizen of Virginia could I vote by mail in one of these Vermont towns?
Come on Charger, you can't equate public and private.
No, it shows that outsiders don't get to determine the course of the group
Do you have full rights where you live?
No? What is going on in Vermont?
It's unfortunate, then, that a person who has lived in a country for years, runs a business that employs people, owns a home, would be considered an "outsider". I know that Canadian rock star Neil Young lived in California for decades before he finally decided to apply for American citizenship, and I don't think most Americans, especially the Farm Aid people, considered him an "outsider".
No. I'm not considered a permanent resident. I'm a Canadian citizen. Even though I'm married to a Chinese citizen I have to renew my residency visa every three years, I don't own property, I'm fully retired, so I don't expect to have the same rights as a Chinese citizen.
Oh, he applied for citizenship? Ya that's the idea.
Voting is a key benefit of citizenship.
Do you think people who enter a country illegally should have citizenship?
Now you got it!
That's the way it works.
LOL If he obtained citizenship because he wanted to vote it was probably to vote against Trump who he almost sued for using his music without permission.
That's fine. What we don't want is non-citizens voting.
Stop twisting my words to suit what YOU want them to mean. Obviously I am NOT considered a PERMANENT resident here, whereas my argument has been that a PERMANENT resident with roots such as a business and a home and kids (maybe born in the USA) should be able to vote on municipal issues that affect him, his business, his home and his kids.
Residency and citizenship are two different things and that difference must remain.
In particular, those who entered illegally must not be allowed to vote in any kind of election.
It will be interesting to see how the Vermont experience ends up. What is legal is one thing, and what is fair is another in my opinion.
But I will tell you. Although there has been discussion about municipal voting recently, in Canada only citizens can vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections.
Nope. All ill gotten gains. And due to the circumstances, practically stolen. Sorry.
Well if the person was born in the USA then they would already be a citizen.
But to look at the rest of your statement. I'm concerned that it goes back against the Voting Rights Acts. Prior to the 1828 presidential election, only property holding white males could vote. This 1828 election was the first election where non-property-holding white males could also vote. Voting by women and other races came later. But by allowing a non-citizen who happens to own property or a business the right to vote are we going backwards with voting rights? Are we putting the ability to own property as more important here than citizenship?
If it goes to the Court, the Constitution will prevail.
What is legal is one thing, and what is fair is another in my opinion.
Fair being what? Having a political party allowing migrants to illegally enter a country, allowing them to have benefits and then finding a way for them to vote knowing that they will vote for them as appreciation. Is that what fairness means to you?
But I will tell you. Although there has been discussion about municipal voting recently, in Canada only citizens can vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections.
As is true in most functioning democracies.
I have no idea what you mean and how it relates to what you replied to.
I just realized. I think the Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers are scared shitless that if such a benefit is obtained by permanent residents, that it will lead to their party and their beliefs being turned into dust.
"So come all you maidens, and listen to me.
Never place your affections on a green willow tree,
The leaves they will wither, the roots they will die,
You'll all be foresaken and never know why."
It is a fact, that is the game and we all know it, in addition to being unconstitutional, undemocratic and wrong.
Maybe a person who isn't a citizen but is a resident who owns property has more of an interest in local issues that can affect that property than a resident citizen who doesn't own property. An alcoholic destitute homeless citizen has a vote and a person who owns a business that gives jobs to people, owns a home, sends his American-born kids to school, gives to local charities, can't vote on local issues that can have a great effect on his life and holdings. There is something about that that kind of confuses me.
I think you misunderstood me - I said his KIDS may have been born in the USA.
I agree that persons illegally in the USA should not be allowed to vote. I was only thinking of legal residents.
I understand and I don't think they should have that sacred right either.
Getting late, so I'm checking out now.
Here illegally. Never should have been any property or business without proper identification and process for citizenship. Ill gotten gains.
Have a good night
yeah, I did misunderstand. Still don't think it's a good idea to give the right to vote to someone just because they own property, or because they have children who are citizens. The children when they are of age can legally vote. How many DACA children are in this country? While something needs to be done to fix their situation and to fix the immigration process, i do not agree with giving their parents the right to vote just because they came here without following the law or process and have children who were born here. That's two different issues.
No, there are a lot of foreign nationals who own property in the USA. That's capitalism. Sell to the highest bidder. I have no issue with who owns what property, but I don't believe that owning property should provide any elevated rights that the person otherwise would not have.
If this person is legally in the country, owns property and perhaps a business or two and has American-born children going to local schools and is involved in his local community, then he (she) has put down roots and perhaps should be looking into citizenship. IMO allowing someone to vote just because they own property here is sliding back to early days and goes against the Voting Rights Acts. What should be done next? Should people who come here but believe that women are at best second class citizens be allowed to lock the women-folk away? Should we go back to the days of segregation?
No. IMO if a person wants to come to America to live they need to follow the process and laws on immigration. And if they want to vote they should work to become citizens of this country.
Guess I can't disagree with your opinion.
I did, thanks.
Snuffy, all along I have been talking about long time resident LEGAL immigrants, ones who followed the law or process but do not happen to have become citizens.
I owned (shared with my brother) a golf condo in Florida for a number of years, so I was a foreign national owning property in the USA, but I was NOT a permanent resident for a number of years, so I would not even have dreamed about voting even in an American municipal eleciton.
Okay, Sniuffy, I realize that my opinion about fairness isn't even followed in my own country of citizenship and there is too much opinion here contrary to mine to continue with my discussion about it. Thanks to all for making it a civil discussion.
So non-citizens are not allowed to own property in the USA? I did, and there was no problem with that.
If this stands, I live in town A and also own property in towns B and C then I should get to vote in 3 local elections
Only if you’re a democrat.
I don't quite get the uproar. Vermont has a right to determine voting within its borders for anything other than federal elections.
"Vermont has a right to determine voting within its borders for anything other than federal elections. "
if that is correct, a state could deny any group the right to vote in local and state elections and say federal voting rights acts are null and void
Allow me to be clearer. The U.S. Constitution forbids restricting citizens over the age of 18 to vote, which would include Vermont, unless certain conditions are met, such as being a convicted criminal, etc.
The U.S. Constitution does not specifically forbid non-citizens from voting, even though it may have been the intent. Federal Law does prohibit non-citizens from voting in Federal Elections, as passed in 1996. This law cannot be contested in the Federal Courts.
As for Vermont...
Vermont is within its rights. Granted everyone thinks you must be a citizen to vote, but that depends on several factors.
So if this stands, all the illegal aliens could go to Vermont and take over the state.
If illegal aliens were not allowed and encouraged to be here and those here without legal permission were removed this would not be a problem at all.