News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know R ecently, the New York City Council passed a law allowing permanent residents and those with DACA status to vote in local elections. This move comes amid a nation- wide push to expressly forbid all non- citizen voting, even in states that don’t allow it. For example, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger circulated a petition for a state amendment banning noncitizen voting in Georgia. In 2020, Colorado, Florida and Alabama approved similar state amendments. Both approaches may come as a sur- prise to Americans who assume that our system has explicitly defined who may vote. But it hasn’t. The Constitution does not define voting as a right, and who possesses this privilege has been fluid throughout American history. Politicians have long enfranchised – or disfranchised – groups to benefit those already in power. That includes immigrants. While federal law since 1996 requires voters in federal elections to be citizens, state and local governments can enfranchise noncitizens in their elections, and our nation has a long history of granting noncitizens vot- ing rights. Approximately two-thirds of the nation, in fact, allowed noncitizens to vote at some point in their territorial or state history, though the practice became curtailed after 1926. Efforts to limit voting rights, including those for noncitizen immigrants, have always been about reshaping the elector- ate as politicians see fit – choosing one’s voters – to serve particular beliefs about belonging and exclusion, in the absence of a truly representative system. The founding generation, acting through the Confederation Congress, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789, enfranchised immigrants in the Northwest Territory, the area west of Pennsylvania and east of the Mississippi River, for example. Noncitizen voting at- tracted immigrants by giving them a say in the government, and those in power saw it as training them for full citizenship. In the Early Republic, many states and territories allowed “declarant im- migrants” – those who had filed their intentions to become citizens – to vote. Under federal law, White, male immi- grants who had resided in the nation for five years could naturalize as U.S. citizens three years after filing their intention to do so; allowing declarant immigrants to vote meant adding more White men to the rolls. Then, amid the democratization of the nation in the 1820s, many states elimi- nated property requirements for White male voters, while erecting new barriers to political participation for women and people of color. A push to end immigrant voting was part of this restructuring of the boundaries of political rights, preserving the ballot for native born White men amid increasing numbers of German and Irish immigrants. Beginning in Wisconsin in 1848, the country witnessed a resurgence of voting by declarant immigrants. Michigan and Indiana soon enfranchised immigrants, followed in the 1850s by Kansas, Min- nesota and Oregon. Politicians sup- ported immigrant voting to gain electoral support from newcomers that was seen as necessary for statehood, as well as to attract European immigrants. These immigrants were on a path to citizen- ship, and the law granted them rights and responsibilities making them closer to citizens than foreigners. Wartime strengthened the link be- tween military service and voting rights regardless of citizenship. During the Civil War, 10 states or federal territories enfran- chised immigrants, many of whom served in the U.S. military. Fighting to preserve the Union conferred a status of belonging. Though the Republican Party con- tained pro- and anti-immigrant voices, its 1860 platform explicitly denounced efforts to make naturalization more dif- ficult or to limit the rights of naturalized citizens. During the War, Republicans successfully repealed a Massachusetts law requiring a waiting period before natu- ralized citizens could vote. Large num- bers of the more than 1 million German immigrants living in the nation in 1860 opposed secession and slavery, which may have influenced the party’s stance. In contrast, the Confederate Constitution expressly prohibited immigrant voting. During Reconstruction, after the 15th Amendment enfranchised Black men, Congress forced Southern states to write new constitutions protecting Black male voting. While no Southern state had al- lowed declarant immigrant voting before the Civil War, the constitutional conven- tions – largely led by White Republicans, though with some Black male delegates – added it to the Reconstruction consti- tutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Texas, for example, enfranchised noncitizens to attract new immigrants and their labor. Texas officials also hoped immigrant vot- ers would bolster support for the Repub- lican Party. With noncitizens splitting votes be- tween parties and nativism on the rise, immigrant voting declined in popularity. By 1900, only 11 states still allowed it. As Southern states established Jim Crow vot- ing laws to eliminate Black voting, some targeted noncitizen voting too, helping cement the power of native-born White men. Georgia ended the practice in 1877, Florida in 1894 and Alabama in 1901. Only in states where immigrants had become a crucial bloc of support did noncitizen vot- ing endure, such as in South Texas where political bosses ran a political machine powered by Mexican immigrant voters. With noncitizens splitting votes be- tween parties and nativism on the rise, immigrant voting declined in popularity. By 1900, only 11 states still allowed it. As southern states established Jim Crow vot- ing laws to eliminate Black voting, some targeted noncitizen voting too, helping cement the power of native-born White men. Georgia ended the practice in 1877, Florida in 1894 and Alabama in 1901. Only in states where immigrants had become a crucial bloc of support did noncitizen vot- ing endure, such as in South Texas, where bosses ran a political machine powered by Mexican immigrant voters. At the turn of the century, immigra- tion fromMexico increased as people fled both the regime of Porfirio Díaz and the violence of the Mexican Revolution. Mexican immigrants were considered legally White, making them eligible to vote in the all-White primaries held in the South, though at times they faced racist violence intended to dissuade them from voting. To stop Mexican immigrant vot- ing in 1896, Populist attorney Theodore McMinn challenged Mexican immigrants’ status as White – and therefore their eligi- bility to naturalize – in re Rodriguez. But the courts rejected his contentions. Noncitizens, like citizens, voted based on an array of issues. For example, Mexi- can and German immigrants tended to be Catholic. Many Catholics objected to the establishment of public schools during Reconstruction, which they feared aimed to indoctrinate students with Protestant teachings. One Texas priest threatened excommunication of Catholics who voted for Republicans. Democrats recruited im- migrant voters and accused the Repub- lican Party of welcoming former Know- Nothings, members of an extremely nativist antebellum political party. Arguing that immigrants were a reactionary force blocking reforms such as Prohibition and woman suffrage, Progressive-era reformers spearheaded the campaign to end noncitizen voting. Voting expansion for some often meant disfranchisement for others. South Da- kota, Texas and Arkansas all passed state amendments requiring referendums that enfranchised citizen women while simul- taneously disfranchising noncitizens. The Texas amendment failed in 1919, but after the 19th Amendment was rati- fied granting women the right to vote, they tried again. The new amendment disfranchised noncitizens, but further enfranchised women by allowing their spouses to pay their poll taxes; it passed in 1921 – in part thanks to White women voters. If Southerners feared that wom- en’s suffrage would lead to increased Black voting, they needn’t have – White women voters frequently reinforced Jim Crow, supporting the disfranchisement of Black voters – and noncitizen voters. In 1926, Arkansas became the final state to end noncitizen voting at the state level, though noncitizen voting endured in various local and school board elec- tions across the country over the ensuing century. Lacking the franchise left non- citizens vulnerable to the nativist whims of their neighbors. For example, in the early 20th century, Congress passed the Expatriation Act de- priving American women of citizenship if they married a noncitizen, and in 1924 the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act sharply curtailed immigration from nations seen as sending “undesirable” immigrants. Then, as now, depriving immigrants of political rights did not stop at voting. Today’s movement to ban noncitizen voting – even in places that don’t cur- rently allow it – reflects resurgent nativ- ist sentiment. Indeed, raising the issue allows politicians to spread fear regarding unfounded claims of rampant noncitizen voting to push for onerous restrictions on citizen voting, by imposing voter ID laws, closing polling locations and limiting early, mail-in and drive-through voting. For this reason, noncitizen voting bans should leave us equally concerned for im- migrant rights more broadly and for the voting rights of all Americans. By Rachel Michelle Gunter Special to TheWashington Post You Didn’t Always Have To Be A Citizen To Vote In America Rachel Michelle Gunter Photo:Twitter @PhdRachel Rachel Michelle Gunter is author of “Immigrant Declarants and Loyal American Women: How Suffragists Helped Redefine the Rights of Citizens” in the Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era and is writing a book about how suffragists and changing notions of citizenship altered the voting rights of women, soldiers, veterans and immigrants. News India Times January 07, 2022 Opinion 3 Dr. Sudhir M. Parikh Founder, Chairman & Publisher Ilayas Quraishi Chief Operating Officer Ela Dutt Editor T. Vishnudatta Jayaraman Washington D.C. Bureau Chief Archana Adalja Contributing Editor Arun Shah Ahmedabad Bureau Chief Peter Ferreira, Deval Parikh, Freelance Photographers Bhailal M. Patel Executive Vice President Chandrakant Koticha-Rajkot, India Executive Director Business Development Jim Gallentine Business Development Manager - U.S. Shahnaz Sheikh Senior Manager Advertising & Marketing Sonia Lalwani Advertising Manager Shailu Desai Advertising New York Muslima Shethwala Syed Sheeraz Mahmood Advertising Chicago Digant Sompura Consultant for Business Development Ahmedabad, India Hervender Singh Circulation Manager Main Office Editorial & Corporate Headquarters 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Tel. (212) 675-7515 Fax. (212) 675-7624 New York Office 3601 36 Ave, Long Island City, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 784-8555 E-mails editor@newsindiatimes.com advertising@newsindia-times.com Website www.newsindiatimes.com Chicago Office 2652 West Devon Avenue, Suite B Chicago, IL 60659 Tel. (773) 856-3345 California Office 650 Vermont Ave, Suite #46 Anaheim, CA 92805 Mumbai Office Nikita Ajay Pai Goregaon, West Mumbai Ahmedabad Office 303 Kashiparekh Complex C.G. Road, 29 Adarsh Society Ahmedabad 380009 Tel. 26446947 F ax. 26565596 Published weekly, Founded in 1975. The views expressed on the opinion pages are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of News India Times. Copyright © 2022, News India Times News India Times (ISSN 0199-901X) is published every Friday by Parikh Worldwide Media LLC., 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Periodicals postage paid at Newark, N.J. , and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address change to News India Times, 1655 Oak Tree Toad, Suite 155 Edison, NJ 08820-2843 Annual Subscription: United States: $28 Disclaimer: Parikh Worldwide Media assumes no liability for claims/ assumptions made in advertisements and advertorials.