Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal.
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
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread
California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.
Hamilton Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
25 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
