American elections should be decided by American voters. That is why the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation that defends that basic principle by requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
In a sane world — especially with an election on the horizon — the SAVE Act would quickly get a vote in the Senate and pass overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, that will not be the case due to Democratic objections to citizenship verification.
On the bright side, as Democrats attempt to normalize the practice of noncitizen voting in local-government elections, many states are not waiting around for Congress to fix the problem. Missouri, North Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kentucky have advanced constitutional amendments to the ballot to let voters decide for themselves whether or not proof of citizenship should be required to vote.
Ohio and Louisiana voters advanced noncitizen voting bans by wide margins this year, bringing the total number of states to implement such a ban up to seven.
Most Americans believe it is common sense to verify that voters are citizens before they get a ballot, according to polling from Honest Elections Project. In fact, only 9% of respondents believe noncitizens should be able to vote in American elections.
However, contrary to popular opinion, progressive attorneys like Marc Elias have convinced like-minded judges to interpret federal law to prevent states from checking an individual’s citizenship during the voter-registration process. As a result, we are forced to rely on nothing more than an unaccountable honor system to police one of the most important aspects of the franchise.
Sometimes illegal registrations are innocent mistakes or the result of noncitizens being misled into believing they can vote. Other times, it happens deliberately. Thanks to our lax laws, it is clearly possible for noncitizens to cast ballots in American elections.
Democrats want to keep it that way.
Washington, D.C., recently enacted a policy to allow noncitizens to vote in 2022. Even the Washington Post editorial board condemned the law, noting that “[s]ome progressives hope that reshaping the electorate will allow them to reshape local politics, prodding the city further to the left on issues such as rent control and spending on social programs.”
The New York City Council passed a similar resolution to allow noncitizen voting in 2022. Thankfully, it was ruled unconstitutional by a state appeals court. Had that not been the case, it would have allowed hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to vote in local elections.
For decades, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, has openly advocated for noncitizen voting.
The fact is noncitizen voting has gone mainstream on the left. Progressives are actively looking for ways to change the composition of the electorate to push American politics to the left, from lowering the voting age to enfranchising felons — and, yes, noncitizens.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal races, they retort. That is true, but merely making something illegal does not stop it, because noncitizens do register and vote.
Democrats are exceedingly out of touch with the median voter on this issue. Perhaps that is why today’s left rejects the idea of the people choosing their government in favor of the government choosing a new people.
The House Democrats’ near unanimous opposition to the SAVE Act and the Democrat-controlled Senate’s likely refusal to consider the bill shows that liberals are not committed to safeguarding American elections from the influence of noncitizens.
The American people deserve to know why liberal politicians in Washington are so keen to put the interests of foreign nationals over the voting rights of American citizens. More state lawmakers must join the effort to secure our elections by nipping this trend in the bud.
This fall, the people of Arizona will have a number of critical decisions to make about the future of our state. But one initiative may be the most important issue facing voters in November.
Earlier this month, the special interests behind a plan to bring California-style jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. If approved, this proposed constitutional amendment would not only make our elections unfair, but it would radically change how Arizonans select and approve candidates for public office in several alarming ways.
The Measure Grants One Politician Too Much Power
It’s never a good idea to give one politician total power over anything—especially an election—but that’s exactly what the Make Elections (Un)Fair Act would do. The measure grants one politician, in this case the Secretary of State, the power to determine how many candidates will appear on the general election ballot for each race. On top of that, the Secretary of State could even decide how many candidates advance in his or her own race…
Arizona Senator Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) has raised a potent legal challenge to the politically driven prosecution that he and 17 other prominent Republican alternate electors have faced at the hands of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes whom he referred to as “zealously partisan.” Hoffman released a scorching statement to accompany a legal motion to dismiss the case on July 2, along with his official mugshot taken after his indictment “in response to Kris Mayes political persecution campaign against the 2020 Republican electors.”
Hoffman wrote,
“In war, only leaders are targeted for assassination.
This is a political war.
You can persecute us.
You can attack us.
But you will never silence us.
Truth will always prevail.
NEVER SURRENDER.
Before an investigation had even been conducted and with no evidence, Kris Mayes declared that she believed electors such as myself were guilty of a crime, that it was her job to get Biden re-elected, and that she would control the timing of the indictment.
Let me be unequivocal, I am innocent of any crime, I will vigorously defend myself, and I look forward to the day when I am vindicated of this naked political persecution by the judicial process.”
Hoffman’s attorney Tim La Sota filed the motion citing Arizona state law that allows for rapid dismissal of cases under special circumstances to protect citizens from legal action for exercising a constitutional right known as “SLAPP” or “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” according to the Arizona Republic.
La Sota called the charges against Hoffman “politics by other means,” describing it as, “an effort by an overtly partisan elected attorney general to shame and punish her political opponents and critics for exercising their constitutional rights.”
In the motion, La Sota added, “The attorney general’s novel, overzealous, and retaliatory prosecution is also tied to Sen. Hoffman’s Republican colleagues’ efforts to conduct oversight of her office.”
Hoffman’s attorney pointed to multiple examples of extra-judicial speech from Mayes and her Chief Deputy Dan Barr for prejudicial statements posted to social media, such as a July 2022 post in which Mayes wrote she “would have immediately investigated the fake electors” stating they “videotaped their crime for all to see.” He also pointed to an August 2022 post from Barr who wrote, the alternate GOP electors were “criminals” claiming they “should be prosecuted as such,” according to AZCentral.
La Sota wrote in the motion, “Attorney General Mayes’ and Chief Deputy Attorney General Barr’s extrajudicial statements demonstrate a strong animus against those who questioned the 2020 election and particularly the alternate electors, including Senator Hoffman, and a desire to prosecute them before any investigation had taken place.”
In an email to the outlet Tuesday, he explained that Mayes’ and her surrogates had effectively branded his client and his co-defendants as criminals before any investigation into their actions began. “It was more than a mere pledge to investigate whether or not they committed a crime, which would have been ethical.”
Executive Director of Save Arizona and Chairwoman of Strong Communities Action Merissa Hamilton reposted Hoffman’s post to X supportively writing, “Future generations will look back on this dark time in our nation’s history and remember those that stood in the gap to save our freedom! Please keep @JakeHoffmanAZ and his family in your prayers! They have backbones of steel! Every day wake up and ask yourself what you can do to save Arizona today! Then go forth like your freedom and life depends on it!”
Who thinks it is a good idea to let voters decide which candidates appear on the general election ballot? Probably everyone. How about letting just one politician decide instead? You would hope that question is rhetorical, and the answer is no one. But right now, out-of-state special interests are spending millions of dollars to put their so-called “Make Elections Fair” measure on the ballot that would do just that.
The groups pushing these ideas are trying to trick voters into signing their petitions and supporting their poorly written constitutional amendment, arguing it will lead to less partisanship and more centrist candidates on the general election ballot. But hidden in the measure is a provision that lets just one politician, the Secretary of State, decide how many candidates move from the primary to the general election…
Another election-related bill was vetoed by Arizona’s Democrat Governor.
On Wednesday, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2393, which would have “require[d] political parties that choose to select a nominee for president by a vote that is open to the entire political party membership to provide a method of voting to uniformed services or overseas citizens and persons with disabilities.”
Governor Hobbs Vetoes Legislation Ensuring Voting Rights for Disabled and Overseas Military Members
“Governor Hobbs’ decision to veto this bill is not only irresponsible but also detrimental to the democratic rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens,” said Representative… pic.twitter.com/4OYIfAzP2q
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) April 11, 2024
In a letter provided to House Speaker Ben Toma, Hobbs explained the reason behind her veto, writing, “If the state were to change the manner in which political parties hold their own elections, it would be important to reflect bipartisan agreement.”
Republican State Representative Alexander Kolodin, the sponsor of the bill, was outraged by the governor’s action. He said, “Governor Hobbs’ decision to veto this bill is not only irresponsible but also detrimental to the democratic rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens. This action leaves a critical aspect of our state law ambiguous, failing to secure the voting rights of individuals with disabilities and our dedicated servicemembers. At a time when ensuring access to the democratic process should be of utmost importance, this veto represents a significant step backward. It’s as if the Governor believes maintaining a murky legal landscape is preferable to granting clear and equitable voting rights to all Arizonans. This isn’t just about policy – it’s about ensuring every voice is heard and valued in our democracy.”
The proposal first passed the Arizona House of Representatives in early February with a 31-24 vote (with two members not voting and three seats vacant). The Arizona Senate then amended the bill and approved that version with a 16-12 vote (with two members not voting) late last month. The House concurred with the Senate’s changes, voting 31-28 (with one member not voting) to transmit the legislation to the Governor’s Office.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
