Not the Headlines - Non-citizen Voters

SPEAKER_01 0:00

The listening tube presents not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:09

I'm Bob Woodley from The Listening Tube. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the federal government cannot bring a case against a woman living in Florida who voted in the 2020 election knowing she was ineligible because she's not a citizen of the United States. She was charged under 18 U.S. Code Section 611, which outlines crimes and criminal procedure. The woman's lawyer posed a question to the judge. Is Section 611 even constitutional? He argues that it is the sole responsibility of the states to regulate voting, and therefore the federal government has no authority to enforce the code. The woman could still be charged under state law and then deported by the federal government, but not charged by the feds for voting in the election.

SPEAKER_01 1:10

Bob didn't believe it.

SPEAKER_00 1:13

You might also be wondering how the federal government can't charge someone for illegally voting in a federal election. Well, I read the judge's 31-page ruling on the case, in which he dismissed the charge. In it, he cites a lot of precedent from other courts, including the Supreme Court, one of which says nothing in the Constitution lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress. Congress may only regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. And the Constitution grants the states and not the federal government the general authority to pass voter qualification laws. The Constitution commits to the states and the states alone the general power to set voter qualifications in federal elections. This is clear from both the text of the document and the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The judge agrees that the Constitution implies, if not explicitly states, that it is the individual states that regulate voter qualifications. Anyone who's familiar with the Constitution knows that unless it expressly gives an authority to the federal government, then it does not have that authority, and it will defer to the states. So, if that's the case, then I would have to agree with the judge that Section 611 is unconstitutional. Let's just get rid of it. All of it. Here's what it says. It's entitled Voting by Aliens. And it says A, it shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of president, vice president, presidential elector, member of the Senate, member of the House of Representatives, delegates from the District of Columbia, or resident commissioner, unless the election is held partly for some other purpose. Aliens are authorized to vote for such purpose under a state constitution or statute or a local ordinance, and voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such federal officers. Uh-huh. So if the city of Los Angeles wants to give non citizens the opportunity to vote on a local ordinance, they can, even if it's during a nationwide election, as long as they cannot vote for federal offices. Only the local ordinance. Or the whole state of California can give non citizens the right to vote on an issue unique to California, as long as it's kept separate from the federal election. So, through Section 611, the federal government gave non-citizens permission to vote for candidates and on issues as long as it wasn't for federal offices. And any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year or both. Which is often what happens when you break the law. Now you might be thinking, but Bob, the federal government can't tell the states how to qualify voters. And you would be right.

SPEAKER_01 5:34

Send email to thelisteningtube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 5:41

The judge in the Florida case of the woman who voted when she wasn't allowed offered some advice in his summary against the federal government. He said, quote, the first and most important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text, that is, the actual words of the Constitution, and to interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood. He goes on to say, when the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, in giving construction thereto, are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument. When the plain text of the Constitution is clear, the court must follow it. Perhaps U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz should take his own advice. In his 31-page order, he refers to the 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments, but goes on to dismiss their application to his ruling as they are merely amendments meant to serve other purposes. He said, the 26th Amendment shares a similar textual construction with three other amendments. The 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Twenty Fourth Amendments establish only that the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged on account of a specific characteristic or condition of the voter, such as race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age. What the judge fails to include in his examination of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution is that each of them uses the specific words the right of citizens of the United States. The fifteenth says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th Amendment says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The 24th says the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president, for electors for president or vice president, or for senator or representatives in Congress shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. The Twenty Sixth Amendment says the right of citizens of the United States who are 18 years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age. The Constitution has no provisions for those who are not citizens to vote. Every amendment that qualifies who has the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections says the voter is a citizen. Forget Section six hundred eleven. Toss it in the trash heap of unneeded regulations and laws. It's not only unconstitutional, it's also unnecessary. The Constitution makes it clear when you take it for its word without complicating its meaning. No non citizen, according to the Constitution of the United States, as made clear in multiple amendments going back as far as 1870 with the 15th Amendment, is allowed to vote in an election for any public office in the nation.

SPEAKER_01 9:48

You can hang your hat on that.

SPEAKER_00 10:04

Funny how the judge missed that part four times. Did he also miss the part where each of the four amendments also say that the Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation? If that's the case, then yes, the federal government can make a law that prescribes punishment for breaking the laws of the Constitution. 18 USC section 611 is unconstitutional. The judge got that part right, but for all the wrong reasons.com where you'll find this week in history and interviews with interesting people. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou Ad Infinitum.