Senate Republicans launch crackdown on DC permitting illegal immigrants, noncitizens to vote in elections
The development follows reports that roughly 400 noncitizens voted in the 2024 general election, with about 100 participating in the primary.
Federal law supremacy prohibits state or local jurisdictions from allowing illegal immigrants from voting in federal elections, since a measure by then-Rep. C.W. Young, R-Fla., called the IIRAIRA passed in 1996.
However, state and municipal leaders have the ability to allow illegal immigrants to vote in lower-tier elections, and Washington, D.C., is one of several that has.
Congress, meanwhile, has unique constitutionally-explicit leverage over the governance of the District on any matter, including local affairs and the overturning of council-passed laws.
Britt's bill would prohibit noncitizens from voting in District elections and repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 – which the City Council passed that authorized noncitizen voting in municipal elections.
"This isn't just about local school boards or fixing potholes. This is about the direction of our nation's capital," Britt said.
"In the city representing the strongest democracy in the world, the D.C. City Council chose to flagrantly violate one of democracy's core principles. This is a slap in the face to every American citizen, whether they live in DC or not, who should be the only voters deciding who represents them in every election and at every level of government.
"I am hopeful we gain bipartisan support in the Senate for this commonsense bill--it is our duty to protect the votes of hardworking American citizens and those who came to our country legally and took the time and effort to go through the naturalization process. Ultimately, this is about strengthening the integrity of our elections."
Noncitizen voters spoke to the Washington Post after the last election, including a woman named Ana Lemus who came to the U.S. more than a decade ago from El Salvador.
Her daughter, who was 4 years old at the time, said she is voting to help address "wealth inequality and police brutality" among other concerns.
In the House, Rep. August Pflueger, R-Texas, is championing companion legislation. While Britt's bill so far only has Republican co-sponsors, Pflueger's effort has garnered about 50 Democratic supporters.
In addition to Washington, select communities in Maryland, New York and Vermont – plus California in certain school board races – allow illegal immigrant voting.
The first city to allow it was Takoma Park, Maryland, back in 1992.
Current Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., helped spearhead that "Share The Vote" effort in the community, which abuts the nation's capital to its northeast.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Colby Cosh: Homeless people ridiculously exempt from Nova Scotia's forest ban
CBC News' industrious Taryn Grant gives us a fresh occasion to peep at Nova Scotia, that parched corner of Hades wherein it is currently forbidden to go for an invigorating saunter in the woods. A couple of weeks ago I discussed the controversial and suffocatingly broad travel restrictions imposed by the province in response to dangerous wildfire conditions. Nova Scotia, not content with everyday tools of regulation like campfire or vehicle bans, has almost totally denied its citizens access even to privately owned woodlands. When critics outside the province yoinked a few questioning eyebrows upward, they were told they failed to understand the precious communitarian spirit of Nova Scotia or its particular vulnerability to forest fire. Well, let's concede that the government of Nova Scotia is answerable primarily to the people of Nova Scotia. In our usual sunny, optimistic way, I scanned for the glint of a silver lining in the exotic, ambitious ban on walking in or through the forest. Perhaps, I remarked, it betokened a new no-nonsense approach to the regulation of public amenities. 'If 'extremism in defence of public property is no vice' is to be the new rule in Canada, we are surely going to see a lot of big changes to urban public parks and other land patches, which, for a decade, have been beset by nomadic tent-dwellers who make copious and inveterate use of propane tanks, electrical heaters, camp stoves, improvised wiring from hijacked power supplies, and open fires.' Well, don't hold your breath. The CBC has now inquired into the possibility that some members of the Wandering Fire-Bringer class may be testing the Nova Scotia fire ban. Turns out it's made of vapour. The province's Department of Opportunities and Social Development estimates that an estimated 137 rough sleepers are still living in the Nova Scotia woods and 'cannot be convinced' to leave. They've been visited repeatedly by a team of 'outreach workers' who themselves enjoy an exemption from the travel rules. A few of the tent-dwellers, worn down by social-worker nattering, agreed to move on or accept spaces in urban shelters. Most have stayed put as if they'd grown roots. And the state turns out to be helpless, even though one fire may already have been started at an 'encampment.' It seems to be generally agreed that there is no point in fining any of the fairy folk of the forest. The provision in the provincial fire proclamation that allows for $25,000 penalties is reserved exclusively for those who might conceivably have such a sum to cough up. Well, what about the ordinary police powers of arrest and detention? After a fortnight of hearing Nova Scotians insist that the current forest-fire risks are unprecedented, and that the traditional mobility privileges of citizenship must necessarily shrivel into abeyance, I am suddenly assured by a legal-aid lawyer that anyone collared for being unlawfully encamped 'would have to be quickly released, as the offence would not warrant being detained.' This ultra-confident prediction leaves me confused. One struggles to understand, from outside N.S., how forest protection can be so important as to justify a ministerial fiat of extraordinary and unprecedented character — but not so important as to be at all enforced. National Post
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US farm agency plan to close flagship research site threatens critical research, critics warn
By Leah Douglas WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Agriculture's plan to close its flagship laboratory near Washington, D.C., could undermine research on pests, blight and crop genetics crucial to American farms, according to lawmakers, a farm group, and staff of the facility. The USDA has already lost thousands of research staff to President Donald Trump's effort to shrink the federal government, even as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has said farm research is a pillar of national security. Rollins said in July that the USDA will close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which occupies nearly 7,000 acres in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington, as part of an agency reorganization effort that will also move roughly half of its Washington-area staff to hubs in North Carolina, Utah and elsewhere. The agency has said it is closing BARC and several other USDA buildings because of costly necessary renovations and underutilized space. Workers at BARC in 2023 filed whistleblower complaints about unsafe working conditions there. But critics of the plan to close BARC say it could backfire by interrupting the facility's ongoing research, and by pushing the scientists conducting it to resign. "It is unlikely that senior scientists of this caliber with mature research partnerships and rich professional lives will simply move somewhere else," said Donnell Brown, president of the National Grape Research Alliance, which depends on BARC research into vine stress and water usage. U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, also slammed the plan. "You have a lot of people who have invested their time and effort in research for farmers across the country, and this plan would destroy that ongoing research," he said. Three staff at the facility, who requested anonymity out of fear of retribution, said the co-location of many labs at BARC allows for economies of scale and cost savings, and that the proximity to Washington enables researchers to easily brief lawmakers or other parts of the USDA. The USDA did not immediately respond to questions about the criticisms. Rollins said in a July memo outlining the relocation effort that the BARC facility would be closed over several years to avoid disruptions to critical research. The USDA on July 25 told the House and Senate agriculture and appropriations committees that it did not have data or analysis underpinning its reorganization plan to share with members of Congress or their staff, according to a letter sent from Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee to Rollins on August 14. "Ostensibly they're saying it would save money, but I haven't seen any study that suggests that's the case," said U.S. Representative Glenn Ivey, whose Maryland district contains the BARC site.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to sign executive order to punish those who burn American flags
President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Thursday that would direct the Justice Department to try to bring charges against people who burn the American flag, a White House official told CNN. The order is not expected to outright criminalize the act of burning the American flag, the official said, but rather directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review cases where the flag has been set on fire and determine whether charges can be brought under existing laws. A 1989 Supreme Court ruling determined that burning the American flag in political protest is protected under the First Amendment. NewsNation first reported Trump's plans for the executive order. This is a developing story and will be updated.
