Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor.
However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal.
'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.'
The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections.
Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections.
However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments.
'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.'
Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.'
'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said.
GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect.
'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.'
House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal.
However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.
Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers.
The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Oversight Committee to hold hearing with Bowser, DC leadership in September
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-K.Y.) said he plans to hold a hearing with Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), and Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) in September following President Trump's announcement that he will take federal control of the city. 'Alongside President Trump, the House Oversight Committee is also advancing legislative solutions to protect Americans in their capital city and plans to hold a hearing with District Attorney General Brian Schwalb, DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and Mayor Muriel Bowser this September,' Comer said in a statement on Monday. 'The committee looks forward to continuing its constitutional duty to oversee DC and will work with the Trump administration to ensure a safe, beautiful, and prosperous capital,' he continued. Trump announced on Monday that in addition to taking federal control of the city's police department, he would deploy the National Guard in an effort to take on crime in the city. The president also announced that he was declaring a public safety emergency in the District, 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room. Under the Home Rule Act, Trump can temporarily take control of the District's police department if he determines 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' It is unclear if the administration coordinated its actions on Monday with D.C. officials. A spokesperson for Mayor Muriel Bowser's (D) office declined to comment just before Trump began speaking. DC Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen (D) pushed back on Trump's announcement, calling it 'dangerous.' 'The President taking over local control of MPD & putting the US military onto the streets of DC under the guise of public safety is wrong,' Allen said in a post on X. 'It's an extreme, outrageous, and dangerous move for our city and the safety of all our residents. '
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
DC city council member: Trump decision ‘dangerous escalation of power'
Washington, D.C. City Councilman Charles Allen said President Trump's decision to federalize his city's police to respond to crime is a 'dangerous escalation of power' that is also misguided. 'The President taking over local control of MPD & putting the US military onto the streets of DC under the guise of public safety is wrong,' Allen wrote on X. 'It's an extreme, outrageous, and dangerous move for our city and the safety of all our residents.' Allen, the subject of a recall effort over crime last year, said every American should be concerned about what Trump is doing in the nation's capital city. 'National Guard soldiers are trained for warfare & natural disasters, not for community policing,' Allen wrote. 'Today's announcement will put untrained and unaccountable members of the military in an untenable position in our communities. It's unnecessary, unwarranted, & a dangerous escalation of power in the Nation's Capital simply because he can,' Allen said. He also suggested the effort could be about Trump trying to distract the country from other issues. 'It might make sense if he's trying to create compelling TV and distract folks from the real scandals he's facing, but it doesn't make our city safer & it's a dangerous abuse of power and authority,' Allen wrote. Trump said he was taking action because of what he and other officials argued was rampant crime in Washington, D.C. 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it,' Trump said. His decisions come a week after a high-profile incident in which a 19-year-old federal employee was left bloodied and beaten near Logan Circle in D.C. Under the Home Rule Act, Trump can temporarily take control of the District's police department if he determines 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' The president announced Monday he was declaring a public safety emergency in the District. Crime rates in D.C. are high, though data also shows crime has fallen since a post-pandemic high. Data from the District shows violent crime is also down so far in 2025 compared with the previous year. Allen was the subject of a recall petition campaign last year that failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot. The councilman was targeted over his record and positions on crime amid a spike in carjackings and killings in his ward after the pandemic.
