Is San Francisco Allowing Registering Non Citizens To Vote
From Ballotpedia
Bound to: navigation, search
| Proposition N: San Francisco Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections |
|---|
 |
| The basics |
| Ballot appointment: |
| November viii, 2016 |
| Condition: |
 a Approved |
| Topic: |
| Local pedagogy |
| Related manufactures |
| Local education on the ballot Nov 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California election measures Local charter amendments on the ballot |
| See besides |
| San Francisco, California |
A lease amendment to permit not-citizen parents or guardians to vote in school lath elections was on the election for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on Nov 8, 2016. Information technology was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the metropolis'south charter to permit the non-citizen parents or guardians of students who live in the San Francisco Unified Schoolhouse District to vote in school lath elections. |
| A no vote was a vote against this proposition, thereby leaving the requirement that only citizens are eligible to vote in any election, including schoolhouse board elections. |
Aftermath
Initiative to preempt Proposition N
-
- See also: California U.South. Citizenship Required to Vote Initiative (2020)
On July 25, 2018, erstwhile U.S. Rep. Doug Ose (R-3) filed a ballot initiative for the 2020 full general ballot to require individuals to be U.S. citizens in guild to vote in California's federal, state, and local elections. All the same, the ballot initiative was afterwards withdrawn. The election initiative would accept preempted San Francisco Proposition N and blocked local governments from enacting similar ordinances in the future. Ose said the proposal had a unproblematic premise—"I don't recall noncitizens should be voting."[ane]
Election results
| Suggestion N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | Votes | Percent | ||
| a Aye | 203,413 | 54.39% | ||
| No | 170,570 | 45.61% | ||
-
- Election results from San Francisco Department of Elections
Text of measure
Ballot question
The post-obit question appeared on the ballot:[2]
| " | Shall the City let a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?[iii] | " |
Simplification digest
The following summary of Proposition N was provided by San Francisco'southward Ballot Simplification Committee:[2]
|
Fiscal impact
The post-obit fiscal impact statement virtually Proffer Due north was provided by the San Francisco Controller:[ii]
| " | Metropolis Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the post-obit statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition Northward: Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, at that place would be an additional cost, as estimated by the Section of Elections, of a minimum of $160,000 per ballot to print and distribute voting materials, train poll workers and separately register people who would become eligible to vote in School Board elections. Should the ballot take place past absentee ballot only, which would require a subsequent ordinance by the Board, costs may be reduced to approximately $110,000, in addition to any costs associated with registration processes. The subpoena would permit non-citizens eighteen years of age or older who have children residing in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in the elections for the School Board. The amendment would dusk on December 31, 2022, but could be extended past ordinance.[3] | " |
Total text
The full text of the measure is available hither.
Back up
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[ii]
- Supervisor Eric Mar
- Supervisor David Campos
- Supervisor Malia Cohen
- Supervisor Jane Kim
- Supervisor Scott Wiener
Arguments in favor
Official statement
The post-obit official statement was submitted in favor of the measure:[ii]
| " | Join the San Francisco Democratic Party in Continuing Up for Proposition Due north: the IMMIGRANT PARENT Right TO VOTE ACT! Proposition N gives all parents a vocalism. • It is essential that we expand parental involvement in our schools. Greater participation is a key element in raising educational achievement, especially in depression-performing schools. • All parents, regardless of citizenship, will accept the opportunity to become an integral function of their child'due south educational activity through the voting process. • It is estimated that at least 1 out of 3 children in SF public schools has an immigrant parent. Tens of thousands of SF residents would go eligible to vote in School Lath elections. Proposition Northward helps our students do ameliorate in school.Students of parents actively involved in schools are more than likely to: • Earn college grades and enroll in college level programs • Attend school regularly, improve their social skills, behavior and adaptation • Graduate and become on to higher Immigrant Voting has a long history in our country. • For the first 150 years of our nation's history 40 states and territories allowed immigrants to vote and even hold office. • Over the final three decades, cities and towns in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have passed laws allowing immigrants to vote. Immigrant Voting is legal. • The US Supreme Courtroom has repeatedly said that citizenship is non required to vote. • The California Constitution protects the right of citizens to vote, but does not exclude immigrants from voting. • The California Constitution explicitly authorizes Lease cities such as SF to provide for the manner of electing school lath members. Please join us in voting Yeah on Proposition Due north to requite all parents a Voice![three] | " |
Opposition
Opponents
The post-obit individuals signed the official argument confronting the mensurate:[2]
- Dr. Terence Faulknere
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official statement was submitted in opposition to the measure:[2]
| " | A BAD LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL – REPEATEDLY DEFEATED AT THE POLLS – THIS ILLEGAL Measure out CALLS FOR Not-CITIZENS TO BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF Teaching ELECTIONS: Like a bad penny, this illegal proposal in violation of the California Elections Code has already been twice defeated by increasing majorities of San Francisco electors – but keeps coming back!!!: It was defeated in 2004 and 2010. This unwise measure out calls for non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote in San Francisco elections for the Lath of Education. Vote "NO!" on Proposition N. This proposal seeks to even allow fifty-fifty illegal aliens on the mode to the airport for deportation to cast their absentee ballots for Board of Pedagogy as they leave the The states. Needless to say, American citizens living away are not allowed to take part in strange nations' board of teaching or other elections. It remains an open question whether at some future date the United States federal government might consider entering into formal treaties with Canada, United mexican states, or other closely centrolineal nations to allow American citizens in those countries and legal foreign aliens from those nations to vote in local lath of pedagogy, city council, or other elections. These are major federal foreign policy questions…and American citizens should of course be granted equal rights with foreign citizens. Don't vote for this misguided election mensurate.[three] | " |
Media editorials
Back up
- The Bay Area Reporter recommended a yes vote for Suggestion N.[4]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Thousands of parents in San Francisco have no directly say in how their children are educated considering they aren't US citizens. Prop. N is a bold idea that could have national implications: Why not let parents and legal guardians of all kids, citizen or not, vote in School Board races? It'southward just a short-term trial – the police force would expire afterwards three School Board elections unless the supervisors decided to renew it. Vote yes."[five]
- San Francisco Examiner : "Sponsored by Supervisor Eric Mar, the measure is meant to increase voter participation and parental interest in the SFUSD. It has the potential to also address the accomplishment gap for Latino students, among others, by getting more parents involved in their children's educational activity and in the schoolhouse commune. Prop. N would cost a minimum $160,000 per ballot in voting materials, grooming for poll workers and voter registration, unless done by absentee ballot, in which case it would price about $120,000, according to the City Controller. It's a worthwhile investment to encourage date among families who might not otherwise feel like they accept much of a stake in The City."[6]
Opposition
- San Francisco Chronicle : "The California Constitution restricts the franchise to citizens, then Proposition Northward is legally dubious and would most likely wind upwards in court. In addition, San Franciscans rightly believe that the privilege of voting should exist restricted to U.Due south. citizens. This is both sensible and just. In a democracy, restricting the franchise to people with citizenship serves to enforce social cohesion and to encourage immigrants to endure the naturalization process. It should remain that way, especially since non-citizen parents take many ways to be actively involved in their children'southward education in San Francisco. We as well urge a "no" vote on Proposition F."[vii]
Path to the ballot
-
- Meet likewise: Laws governing local ballot measures in California
This mensurate was put on the ballot through a 10-i vote of the San Francisco board of supervisors.[2]
"Yes" votes
The following supervisors voted in favor of putting Proposition Northward on the ballot:[2]
- Eric Mar - District ane
- Aaron Peskin - District 3
- Katy Tang - Commune 4
- London Breed - Commune 5
- Jane Kim - District 6
- Norman Yee - Commune vii
- Scott Wiener - District 8
- David Campos - District 9
- Malia Cohen - District 10
- John Avalos - District 11
"No" votes
The post-obit supervisors voted confronting putting Proffer N on the election:[2]
- Mark Farrell - District two
Recent news
The link below is to the nearly contempo stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco non-citizens voting in schoolhouse board elections Proposition N. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these manufactures.
See also
External links
- San Francisco County Elections Office website
Footnotes
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Former GOP congressman wants an official ban on 'noncitizens' voting in California," July 25, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 two.1 two.2 2.three two.4 2.v two.six 2.7 ii.eight 2.9 San Francisco Elections Role, "San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot," accessed September 26, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.iv Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Bay Area Reporter,"B.A.R. ballot endorsements," accessed October ix, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian,"ENDORSEMENTS! The case for six progressive supes, Kim for state Senate …," accessed Oct half-dozen, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner,"Examiner Endorsements: Metropolis measures," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle,"Voting should remain a privilege for adult citizens," September 6, 2016
| Local election measures in California | ||
|---|---|---|
| Counties | Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Purple • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba | |
| Analysis | Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure data on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures | |
| 2022 | April 12 • | |
| 2021 | March 2 • May four • June 8 • June 29 • Baronial 31 | |
| 2020 | March 3 • April 14 • May five • June 2 • June 23 • Baronial 25 • November 3 | |
| 2019 | February 26 • March v • March 19 • March 26 • April ix • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • Nov v | |
| 2018 | January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November half-dozen | |
| 2017 | January x • Feb 28 • March seven • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June half-dozen • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • Oct 17 • November 7 | |
| 2016 | January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May iii • June seven • Nov 8 | |
| 2015 | Jan 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March ten • March 24 • April 14 • May v • May 19 • June two • June 23 • August 25 • September ane • October half-dozen • November iii • Nov 17 | |
| 2014 | February 4 • Feb 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May vi • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November iv | |
| 2013 | March five • March 12 • Apr ii • April ix • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June eighteen • July 2 • July xvi • July 23 • August 27 • November 5 | |
| 2012 | February 7 • March half-dozen • March 13 • Apr 6 • April x • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6 | |
| 2011 | January 25 • March 1 • March eight • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22 | |
| 2010 | Jan 12 • February ii • February 23 • March two • March ix • April xiii • May iv • May 25 • June 8 • June xv • June 22 • July 13 • Baronial 24 • Baronial 31 • September 21 • November 2 | |
| 2009 | January 13 • Feb 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May nineteen • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • Baronial 4 • August 25 • August 28 • Nov iii • November 17 • December viii • December fifteen | |
| 2008 | February 5 • March 4 • Apr 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November iv | |
| 2007 | March 6 • May vii • Nov vi | |
| 2006 | March 7 • April 11 • May ii • June 6 • November 7 | |
| Political topics | Informational votes • Binding mediation • Business organization taxes • Urban center charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Package taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Cherry-red calorie-free cameras • Rent command • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and country employ | |
 | Land of California Sacramento (majuscule) |
|---|---|
| Elections | What'southward on my election? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Election measures |
| Government | Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.Southward. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | Land legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
Categories:
- Pages using DynamicPageList dplreplace parser function
- Local ballots, 2016
- California 2016 local ballot measures
- Local education, California, 2016
- Local measure out in San Francisco, California
- Local measure in canton of San Francisco, California
- Local measure, November viii, 2016
- Certified past engagement local ballot measures
- Approved local measure, 2016
- Local charter amendments, California, 2016
Is San Francisco Allowing Registering Non Citizens To Vote,
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citizen_Voting_in_School_Board_Elections_Amendment,_Proposition_N_%28November_2016%29
Posted by: rileyaccar1986.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Is San Francisco Allowing Registering Non Citizens To Vote"
Post a Comment