Posted on 07/21/2004 11:14:44 AM PDT by Smogger
SAN JOSE, Calif. - (KRT) - The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to place a controversial ballot measure on the November ballot that could make the city the first in California to allow non-citizens to vote in local school board elections.
Under the proposed charter amendment change, parents or guardians of children in San Francisco schools - including undocumented immigrants - would be allowed to vote.
"I believe this is important because it further democratizes our society," said board president Matt Gonzalez, author of the initiative. The board voted 9-2 to place the measure on the ballot for a city vote.
But Supervisor Fiona Ma, one of two supervisors who voted against the measure, said she opposed it because she believes only U.S. citizens should have the right to vote.
"We start going down a slippery slope when we start giving special privileges," Ma said. "There is no question that improving our schools should be a priority for this body. But expanding voting rights to non-citizens does nothing to further those ends."
San Francisco has attempted to extend voting rights to non-citizens in the past. In 1996, a state judge struck down an attempt by some residents to allow non-citizens to vote in all municipal elections. The judge ruled that the proposal conflicted with the California constitution, which requires U.S. citizenship to vote.
Supporters of the new ballot measure said they are confident that this time, with the narrow focus on local school board elections, the proposal will stand up to a legal challenge.
"It's important because it integrates residents of the city who are disenfranchised in the decision-making process in schools," said Carlo Petroni, a founder of Movimiento de los derechos des inmigrantes, (Movement for Immigrant Rights), a San Francisco group that's campaigning to get the ballot measure approved. "It's good policy and it's good government."
What happens when the immigrants start voting "incorrectly", i.e. start voting for conservative board members?
I doubt it. People have an incredible resiliance when it come to confronting truth.
The two largest radio markets in the U.S. (I believe) New York and Los Angeles now tout the fact that spanish radio stations pull in the largest audiences.
Fella, it may not be racist to promote spanish at the loss of the english language, but defending english is almost assured to be.
I read this headline and I think I'm in The Twilight Zone.
Sounds fine to me. But You may want to take a song like Billy Joel's Honesty to work with SOVEREIGNTY..
SOVEREIGNTY it's such a lovely word,
And the left just chops it down.
SOVEREIGNTY it isn't for the birds,
And John Kerry is such a Clown.
Take it singers.
You are. In fact, at times I think I'm in a parallel universe.
Nawwwwww, just leave. If ALL the sane people leave a certain area the insane that are left will self destruct in a quick and disorderly manor.
Not only that, but last time we went to bid on a job for bringing state-of-the-art technology into this city to create Mayor Brown's (I'll save THAT subject for another thread...) vision for automated government, the city actually REQUIRED responding business to support domestic partnership, show that you were minority-owned and/or women-owned businesses. I'm not sexist OR racist, but I seem to be unable to competitively do business in this city for being a white male and running a corporation. Those outside CA may not realize those requirements actually exist. Anyway, thanks for the response.
All we are doing is enfranchising immigrants. It is a misguided shortcut that will undermine the process and importance of becoming a full American citizen.
I think all Ahnold has to do is have the Board of Supervisors arrested for attempting to subvert the Constitution of the State of California, which plainly states the qualifications for voting.
OK, but as I stated you have to win elections to govern.
Prop 187 comes to mind. California voters passed it, the judges tossed it, and the sheeple shrugged their shoulders and then punished Republicans every since.
It's rather obvious therefore that there in NO political will to do what you are suggesting. I voted for 187, it was a good idea.
Maybe we're just doomed, it's possible, but I refuse to let one issue invalidate all others to the point that I cannot see the difference btwn Reps and Dems when it comes to governing.
Security, defense, and tax policy are core values which I find Reps much more akin to my beliefs.
In 1992 I was opposed to NAFTA and supported Perot. We got Clintoon for 8 years(he won with 43% of the vote), today I'm much more practical.
I owned a CA S Corp in the 1990's. Had 11 employees.
It was my worst nightmare.
Being an employer in CA makes you an "enemy of the state".
I don't miss it one bit.
Unfortunately those employees had to go elsewhere.
FReegards
Baredog
Good question. I don't know the answer. I think the Citizens of California should get Ahnold to nip this in the bud before it spreads across the nation. Look what the Mass. Supremo court jesters started.
Why not just privatize the schools and then let the customers 'vote' by choosing where to send their kids?
It violates sec. 2 of Article II of the California Constitution. Not that the Democrats give a rats' rear end about the rule of law. All they are interested is in keeping their power.
Yeah, right... "START" going down...
SF is so far down that slope that San Franciscans have to look up to see whale poops!
I imagine the Democrats would also like to have Terrorists vote for President of the USA - it would help to democritize our foriegn policy.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
yeah I know this is hugh....;)
They already let non-citizens vote in Rome. When in Rome...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.