Yes, states could allow aliens to vote for President. As ohwilleke says, the Constitution gives the states control over who can vote. In fact, for much of our history, many states allowed aliens to vote. To the extent that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which forbids aliens from voting for President, contradic...
Thank you for such a detailed answer. I wasn't even aware that IIRIRA might be unconstitutional. I'm also curious about your assertion that it's purely symbolic: New Hampshire's voting qualification ("every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards") seems to allow alien voting. Notwithstanding its dubious constitutionality, do you have a view on whether IIRIRA would prevent states from choosing to count the votes of aliens?
FWIW, non-citizens who have resided in the country for at least a year can vote in New Zealand, and non-citizens from the EU can vote in local but not national elections in EU states.
@ohwilleke I'm aware that some other nations allow this: for example, any citizen of a Commonwealth country (or the Republic of Ireland) who is resident in the UK may vote in the UK's general elections.
@JustAGuy "Under the IIRIRA, there can't be any alien votes to count!" - Ok, this is what I'm getting at! There could be such votes, illegal though they would be under IIRIRA. Do you think that, because federal law makes the act of casting such a vote illegal, the state is prevented from tallying that vote for the purpose of selecting its electors?
" To the extent that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which forbids aliens from voting for President, contradicts that power, it is unconstitutional." The supreme court is decides what is and isn't consitutional. Did I miss your citation to this holding? Because the answer looks like your interpretation, based on the text, history, etc. There are plenty of previously "obvious" states rights (using arguments such as yours) that the supreme court has determined do not exist.
@Justaguy We're arguing semantics. What you call "constiutional/unconstitutional" I am calling "an argument for constitutionality/unconstitutionality". I believe your usage is nonstandard, making your lede paragraph misleading, hence the downvote.
Actually, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress explicit power to override the State voting, quote: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations."
"To the extent that 18 U.S.C. § 611, which forbids aliens from voting for President, contradicts that power, it is unconstitutional." - That extent appears to be exact zero, thanks to its point (a)/2. § 611 makes it a federal crime for an alien to (attempt to) vote for a enumerated federal office in a state which does not authorize aliens to cast a vote in that election, if the alien knew they were an alien, etc.. § 611 was apparently put together by somebody already familiar with the Constitution.
Your interpretation of § 611(a)(3) is equally flawed. Read in entirety, this addresses a situation where a vote for the federal office is combined, e.g., with a state referendum in such a way that the alien does not get any chance to participate in the referendum without casting the vote for the federal office.
@JirkaHanika Thanks for the comment. I am sorry, but I am not sure why you think I am wrong. I claim that the Qualifications Clause gives control over who can vote for President to the states. I say that when §611 says aliens cannot vote for President, it violates the Qualifications Clause. Are you saying that §611 does not prevent aliens from voting for President? If not, what exactly are you saying.
@SSight3 Did you read my answer? A big chunk of it explains why Art I, § 4 does not give Congress power to regulate voter qualifications. I show that your interpretation is not consistent with: a) the text of the Constitution; b) the clear intentions of the Founders; c) Supreme Court precedent; and, d) the practices of both federal and state governments throughout history. Can you explain why all of these the sources I cite are wrong, and why? PS FWIW, I appreciate anyone who take the time to reply to may answers, and upvoted your comment.
@Hasse1987 No, we are not arguing semantics. We are arguing about the rules for constitutional discourse. You keep saying my answer is wrong, not because I am wrong about the constitution, but because I didn’t frame it the “right” way. I am curious as to where you learned these rules, and why you think I should obey them. For example, you say my “usage is nonstandard.” Why do you think my usage is “nonstandard”? Did someone tell you what usage is "standard"? If so, who? Can you cite any sources for these standards? And so on.
@Justaguy in NZ, the situation is a little more murky - the law refers to “Permanent Residents” when detailing who is allowed to vote, but then goes on to define what a “Permanent Resident” is - and it doesnt align with the visas. Someone with a Residency visa would fall under it. legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM308824.html
@Moo No, it's not a little more murky!It's crystal clear: I screwed up! The election web site I looked at has an explainer that explains it all very clearly: "For electoral purposes, you are a permanent resident if you’re in New Zealand legally and not required to leave within a specific time..." vote.nz/enrolling/get-ready-to-enrol/… Ouch!
@Justaguy takes a big person to admit that like you have, so thanks and appreciated! :) It sucks when different government bodies have different definitions for essentially the same thing :/ For example, the tax definition of residency is entirely different again!
Discussion on answer by Just a guy: C…
Discussion on answer by Just a guy: C…