PHOTO: Courtesy of WLUK
(WTAQ-WLUK) — For some voters, it might seem like a very minute change in wording.
But for the League of Women Voters, Wisconsin’s latest constitutional amendment proposal would be a downgrade for voting rights.
A referendum item on the ballot in November will ask voters to decide if wording on voting eligibility within the state’s constitution should read that “only” a U.S. citizen, who is 18 years or older and a state resident, may vote in any national, state or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.
“That changes our constitution from having a guarantee that every citizen could vote, to a limitation to a subset of only citizens. That then could be used to further limit that group,” said Eileen Newcomer with the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.
Currently, this portion of the state constitution says “every” U.S. citizen may vote.
Republican lawmakers, like state Senator Andre Jacque, say this would better emphasize that just registered citizens can vote.
“Being proactive based on what we’ve seen in a number of other states, where local jurisdictions have taken advantage of similarly worded statutes, that I really don’t think are particularly nebulous, and yet they’re almost identically worded to Wisconsin’s,” said Jacque.
U.S. code says it’s illegal for any non-citizen to vote for federal office, such as president, vice president, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
However, federal law also states non-citizens are authorized to vote in other offices if allowed under a state constitution, statue, or local ordinance.
Some municipalities in Maryland, Vermont and California allow non-citizen voting at the local level — such as in school board and city council races.
The League of Women Voters says Wisconsin already has safe and secure elections and claims the amendment is being used as a fear tactic.
“We’re open to the conversation around whether non-citizens should vote or not. It’s something that the people should decide and I think it’s a really important conversation for people to have. That’s not the conversation that we need to be having right now about this amendment, because right now that conversation is a distraction for the change that’s actually being presented to voters that would diminish all of our voting rights,” said Newcomer.
Meanwhile, Jacque says, “They’re serving to make it a distraction by opposing what is, I think, a very simple clarification based on what we’ve seen occur elsewhere in the country.
Other states, such as South Carolina, will have voters decide on an amendment that would make similar changes to the phrasing of who can vote.
Comments