Abstract
Voting is reserved for citizens, right? No. It is not widely known that immigrants, or noncitizens, currently vote in local elections in Chicago and Maryland. Moreover, campaigns to expand the franchise to noncitizens have been launched in at least a dozen other jurisdictions from coast to coast since 1990, including New York, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., California, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. These contemporary practices have their roots in another little-known fact: for most of US history—from the founding until the 1920s—noncitizens voted in 40 states and federal territories in local, state, and even federal elections. Moreover, noncitizens were permitted to—and did—hold public office such as alderman, coroner, and school board member. For most of America’s history and in the vast majority of the USA, voting by noncitizens was the norm, not the exception. These policies reflect the impact of massive demographic shifts and the spread of democratic ideas. Noncitizens pay taxes, own businesses and homes, send their children to public schools, and can be drafted or serve in the military, yet proposals to grant them voting rights are often met with great resistance. But in a country where “no taxation without representation” was once a rallying cry for revolution, such a proposition is not, after all, so outlandish. This essay examines the politics and practices of immigrant voting in the USA, chronicling the rise and fall—and reemergence—of immigrant voting. In addition, this essay looks at the arguments for and against noncitizen voting and its impact and on policy and American political development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is a discrepancy in the scholarship about how many states, which states, and at what times these states allowed noncitizens to vote. Most scholars calculate this figure using the date when noncitizen voting rights ended, such as Aylsworth (1931), who stated that “at least twenty two states and territories allowed noncitizens to vote and hold office.” Raskin (1993, p. 1401) rightly questioned the accuracy of this figure. More recent scholarship showed “an upper limit of 35” states and territories that “ever permitted noncitizens to vote” (Tienda 2002, p. 602). My research shows that as many as 40 states and federal territories at one point or another allowed noncitizens to vote (Hayduk 2006).
Today in the USA, there are distinct categories of immigrants, the main distinction being “documented” or “legal” versus “undocumented” or “illegal” immigrants. Legal permanent residents are those who obtain immigrant visas or “green cards” because they (1) are related to a US citizen or permanent resident, (2) possess a needed or desirable job skill or ability, or (3) are spouses or children of green card holders. Other categories of legal immigrants include asylees, refugees, and “nonimmigrant” foreigners (such as students, tourists, diplomats, and temporary workers).
To be clear, Franklin was not a proponent of alien suffrage, particularly later in his life.
Raskin notes, “Two classes of people were given the right to hold office in the territorial legislatures: resident owners of 200 acres of land who had been citizens of one of the United States for three years, and aliens who owned 200 acres of land and had lived in the territory for three years. . . . The class of electors consisted, similarly, of residents who owned 50 acres of land and were citizens of one of the states, and aliens who owned 50 acres of land and had lived in the territory for two years.” (Raskin 1993, p. 1402)
E.E. Schattschneider’s Struggle for Party Government was quoted by David Adamany in “Introduction” to E.E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People, p. xi.
Anti-French forces lobbied for laws restricting voting rights of immigrants during the 1790 s and early 1800 s (Hale 2003, p. 151). Three laws made up the Alien Acts: the Alien Enemies Act, the Alien Friends Act, and the Sedition Act.
The Federalists passed a Naturalization Act that made it more difficult to attain citizenship by raising the residency requirements from 5 to 14 years. However, after the Federalists lost the 1800 election, the Alien and Sedition Acts were not enforced, and they expired in 1801. Shortly afterwards, in 1802, under President Thomas Jefferson, the residency requirement for naturalization was returned to its original 5 years where it has remained to this day.
Burnham makes a similar point about electoral arrangements: “The South is properly viewed as an extreme rather than a wholly deviant example of processes more generally and diffusely at work.” (Burnham 1974, p. 1054).
Indeed, these partisans and reformers asserted that such conditions existed all over the country and were not merely sporadic. “They are still more widespread than is generally supposed, and in many communities constitute the backbone of the strength of the corrupt political machine.”
Similarly, studies of the contemporary period show that partisan competition continues to be an important factor shaping turnout (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993).
A useful distinction can be made between “immigration policy” and “immigrant policy,” which analysts sometimes employ. “Immigration policy” determines which immigrant groups are permitted to enter the USA and in what proportions and numbers. A distinct but related set of “immigrant policies” refers to federal, state, and local laws and policies that influence the integration and the treatment of immigrants after they have arrived. The federal government sets US immigration policy. The US immigrant policy is composed primarily of various state and local provisions and programs, which are less consistent and coherent than federal policy. Immigrant voting rights fall into the latter category of immigrant policy. Of course, both immigration policy and immigrant policy flow from the larger formal and informal rules and processes that shape governance and operate in economic and social life more generally.
A household is “food insecure” if at some point during the previous year, it was unable to obtain or uncertain of having adequate food to meet basic needs, according to the USDA (Urban Institute 2002).
Ironically, Minor v. Happersett upheld the Missouri voting legislation that limited suffrage to male citizens.
References
Allen, H. W., & Allen, K. W. (1981). Voter fraud and data validity. In J. Clubb, W. H. Flanigan, & N. Zingale (Eds.), Analyzing electoral history. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2002). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 1(3), 315–338.
Argersinger, P. H. (1985–1986). New perspectives on electoral fraud in the gilded age. Political Science Quarterly, 100, 4.
Avila, J. (2003). Political apartheid in California: consequences of excluding a growing noncitizen population. Latino policy and issues brief, #9. UCLA: Chicano Studies Research Center.
Aylsworth, L. (1931). The passing of alien suffrage. American Political Science Review, 25(1), 114–16.
Burnham, W. D. (1974). Theory and voting research: some comments on converse “Change in the American Electorate. American Political Science Review, 68, 3.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost J, Reardon-Anderson J., Passel J. S. (2004). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Report. Washington: Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2014.
Coll, K. (2010). Remaking citizenship: Latina immigrants and new American politics. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Coll, K. (2011). Citizenship acts and immigrant voting rights movements in the US. Citizenship Studies, 15(8), 993–1010.
Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In The human meaning of social change, edited by Angus Campbell and Philip Converse. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Earnest, D. (2008). Old nations, new voters: nationalism, transnationalism, and democracy in the era of global migration. New York: SUNY.
Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Lopez, M. H. (2013). A demographic portrait of Mexican-origin Hispanics in the United States. Pew Research Hispanic Center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-origin-hispanics-in-the-united-states/. Accessed 29 March 2014.
Harris, J. P. (1929). Registration of voters in the United States. Baltimore: The Lord Baltimore.
Hayduk, R. (2006). Democracy for all: restoring immigrant voting in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Hayduk, R. (2005). Gatekeepers to the franchise: shaping election administration in New York. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish became white. New York: Routledge.
Keyssar, A. (2000). The right to vote: the contested history of democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.
Kleppner, P. (1982). Who voted? The dynamics of electoral turnout. New York: Praeger.
Minnite, L. (2010). The myth of voter fraud. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State (1849). Minnesota Territorial Government Act, ch. 121, sec. 5, 9 stat. 403, 405. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/student/act1849.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2005.
Kini, T. (2005). Sharing the vote: noncitizen voting rights in local school board elections. California Law Review 93.
Migration Policy Institute (2013). Data hub, various fact sheets. http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state4.cfm?ID=US. Accessed 2 June 2013.
Newton, L. (2012). Policy innovation or vertical integration? A view of immigration federalism from the states. Law & Policy, 34(2), 113–137.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (2000). Why Americans still don’t vote: and why politicians want to keep it that way. Boston: Random House.
Raskin, J. B. (1993). Legal aliens, local citizens: the historical, constitutional, and theoretical meanings of alien suffrage. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1401–1470.
Rosberg, G. (1977). Aliens and equal protection: why not the right to vote? Michigan Law Review 75, 1092–1136.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and d emocracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinhart and Winston.
Smith, R. (1997). Civic ideals: conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sontag, D. (1992). Noncitizens and right to vote. New York Times, p. A1.
Tienda, M. (2002). Demography and the social contract. Demography, 39(4), 587–616.
U.S. Department of Commerce (2013). The diversifying electorate—voting rates by race and Hispanic origin in 2012. Thom file, CPS. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/. Accessed 3 June 2013.
Urban Institute (2002). Immigrant well-being in New York and Los Angeles. http://www.urban.org/immigrants/index.cfm.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The sprit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hayduk, R. Political Rights in the Age of Migration: Lessons from the United States. Int. Migration & Integration 16, 99–118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0336-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0336-6