California doesn’t really care if you’re a citizen or not when you vote
First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli said that the arrest of the Honduran national in California for allegedly unlawfully registering to vote shows the state’s vulnerability.
Essayli told Bill Melugin on Fox News:
“This case really highlights the vulnerability in California’s voter rolls. They basically allow anybody to register to vote on the honor system. There’s nobody in government that is checking to confirm you’re a citizen, and in fact, in this case, he on the form put down a California driver’s license and a social, which he had because he has a visa that does not prove you’re a citizen. And according to the Secretary of State, they say at least half a million people don’t even provide that information when they register to vote.”
The Democrats have decided this is in their best interests. It could easily be corrected, but is not.
It makes one wonder just how blue California would be if there was actual voting security. I think it would still be blue, but not as overwhelmingly. We may never know, because it’s hard to imagine that the Democrats in California would want to tighten up their enforcement. There’s really no reason to do so, because the current situation benefits them.
I just got my 16th jury duty summons. Or some such number.
The typical occurrence is that they will bring about 45 or 50 people into the court room for voir dire and perhaps a dozen or more will say “No habla ingles” and will be dismissed. It used to be that the summons documentation would state that everyone was selected from the voter registration rolls. Now it says that it includes “other sources” also. Sure. Obviously, there may be some citizens with poor English proficiency.
One jury I served on had a nice elderly German lady juror. She had lived here a long time & spoke perfect English, but was not a citizen. (Not sure how that works.) Another juror asked her if she votes. Of course, was her response. Why not?
What a mess. I just asked about this on chatgpt. There is currently no statutory means by which the federal government can enforce the citizenship requirement against a state. It can go after individuals and it can go after states to clean up their voter rolls in general, but it cannot take a targeted approach against a state as to the citizenship requirement. And I guess the SAVE Act is still lost in limbo.
TommyJay–
” but was not a citizen. (Not sure how that works.)”
She could have been here on a “green card” (resident alien); they are allowed to be here but it is not the same as citizenship.
CA provides a drivers’ license for non-citizens that is supposed to be distinctly different from the real driver’s license. It is supposed to lead to safer highways by making it possible for the non-citizen (aka illegal alien) to get insurance, etc. (If you believe that logic, I can get you into some beachfront property in Tonopah. NV.) Evidently that illegal alien drivers’ license is also good for voter registration.
Many years ago CA (where I have lived for > 50 years) started giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens … I’m sorry I mean “undocumented”. That was dubious enough by itself. The last time I renewed my license I got tons of information about registering to vote even though I have been registered nearly that whole time but nothing about operating a motor vehicle on the roads of California. As they say, connect the dots.
This vulnerability is a huge argument against ever using national popular vote to decide presidential elections.
At least with the Electoral College, a state’s failure to police their electorate only affects that state’s electoral votes.
@ thesixthmoon > “This vulnerability a huge argument against ever using national popular vote”
Which explains why the Democrat-majority states have concocted that pact to give all their votes to the popular winner.
If the Marxists could register everyone on the planet to vote in their and the country’s elections they would.
California citizens have qualified a voter ID initiative, proposition 39, for the November ballot. The Democrats are fighting it tooth and nail, but it’s a popular concept.
The initiative would require a valid identification to prove citizenship to vote.
The Democratic Attorney General changed the title of the initiative from “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements” to “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”
The supporters sued but a Democrat appointed judge found no problem.
There is a long list of groups that oppose it including the League of Women Voters and the ACLU.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats are able to manufacturer enough bogus votes to stop it.
Roman Senator Cicero was right when he wrote that, even for those who appear to benefit, dishonesty always has long term negative consequences.
@ Bob Wilson > “It will be interesting to see if the Democrats are able to manufacturer enough bogus votes to stop it.”
I don’t think there is any “if” involved.
@ Geoffrey > “Honesty is the best policy” is the proverb for a reason.
Most people may even believe that to be true, in the long run. However, “honesty would prevent me from getting what I want right now” is the more common cause of action.