Federal law already allows only U.S. citizens to vote in elections for president and Congress. Yet Republicans are raising concerns about the potential for noncitizens voting in this year's elections.
It just made my morning to see that not only is the AP reporting this correctly, but the headline explicitly states the insane rarity of voter fraud. (Non-citizen or otherwise.) You have a better chance of getting a clear picture of Bigfoot than you do of having a voter fraud incident in your jurisdiction.
This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters
Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.
What’s on the ballot?
Republican-led legislatures in eight states have proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots declaring that only citizens can vote.
Proposals in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin would replace existing constitutional provisions stating that “every” citizen or “all” citizens can vote with new wording saying “only” citizens can vote. Supporters contend the current wording does not necessarily bar noncitizens from voting.
In Idaho and Kentucky, the proposed amendments would explicitly state: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote. Similar wording won approval from Louisiana voters two years ago.
Voters in North Dakota, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and Ohio passed amendments between 2018 and 2022 restricting voting to “only” citizens.
What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?
Some Democrats contend the measures could create hurdles for legal voters, are unnecessary and lead people to believe the problem of noncitizens voting is bigger than it really is.
Legislatures pass bills. Sometimes they are called resolutions, or other names, but the items that are voted on are bills. Prior to the passage of these bills, only citizens could legally vote anyway. Noncitizens face fines, jail, and deportation for an act that has no mathematical influence on these elections even if it were to happen, which it generally does not.
By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote. This selective enforcement will fall disproportionately on those people who belong to the targeted group - in this case, those who look like the people immigrating across the southern U.S. border - similar to how poll taxes and literacy tests were used to prevent other groups from exercising their legitimate right to vote. And that’s by design, else these measures would not be coupled with fear mongering about these people.
Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.
By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote.
No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.
You’re moving goalposts again, as I provided the excerpt from the article that you asked for in your prior comment.
The truth of the matter is that each of the racially motivated hurdles to voting I’ve previously noted follow a clear pattern of aiming to prevent certain groups from voting and this latest one is no different. No fluctuation of strawman arguments will change that
This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters
No. This is what you stated. Instead of showing where any disenfranchisement would happen you quoted
Some Democrats contend the measures could create hurdles for legal voters
This is not evidence of any disenfranchisement is occurring Instead you’re just wildly speculating that there’s some random clear pattern of some sort that simply doesn’t exist.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.
What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?
3rd paragraph in:
Legislatures pass bills. Sometimes they are called resolutions, or other names, but the items that are voted on are bills. Prior to the passage of these bills, only citizens could legally vote anyway. Noncitizens face fines, jail, and deportation for an act that has no mathematical influence on these elections even if it were to happen, which it generally does not.
By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote. This selective enforcement will fall disproportionately on those people who belong to the targeted group - in this case, those who look like the people immigrating across the southern U.S. border - similar to how poll taxes and literacy tests were used to prevent other groups from exercising their legitimate right to vote. And that’s by design, else these measures would not be coupled with fear mongering about these people.
Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.
No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.
You’re moving goalposts again, as I provided the excerpt from the article that you asked for in your prior comment.
The truth of the matter is that each of the racially motivated hurdles to voting I’ve previously noted follow a clear pattern of aiming to prevent certain groups from voting and this latest one is no different. No fluctuation of strawman arguments will change that
No. This is what you stated. Instead of showing where any disenfranchisement would happen you quoted
This is not evidence of any disenfranchisement is occurring Instead you’re just wildly speculating that there’s some random clear pattern of some sort that simply doesn’t exist.