Correspondence - #39 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■ Sent via email November 6, 2023 Santa Ana Mayor and City Council 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Q C)I,YYIYY Yiit i),s ii�Y.i,o.g ...............................i.................... UCI lnim�gran-j R�ght in Re: November 7 City Council Meeting, Item No. 39 Ballot Measure on Noncitizen Voting Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council: ACLU AMIE.WCAIIN UUIIT111. II.IERIEIRTIES UNION FOUNDATION SOLIthn.rn CaIa[6rnh Chinese for Affirmative Action, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic respectfully submit this letter regarding the City Council's planned discussion on November 7 about placing a measure on the November 2024 ballot to amend the City Charter to extend the vote to noncitizen residents in municipal elections. Noncitizen residents are an integral part of the City of Santa Ana: they comprise 23.6% of the City's total population and 30% of the voting age population, pay taxes, and are subject to local laws. Although noncitizen residents have a direct stake in the policies the City adopts, they are currently unable to vote in local elections. Santa Ana has the legal authority and the ability to successfully implement noncitizen voting. In doing so, Santa Ana would be taking a bold step toward becoming a more inclusive and democratic place to call home for all of its residents. As a Charter City, Santa Ana Has the Legal Authority to Expand the Electorate for Municipal Elections This past August, the California First District Court of Appeal in Lacy v. City and County of San Francisco, 94 Cal. App. 5th 243 (2023), upheld a 2016 amendment to San Francisco's city charter to allow noncitizen caregivers to vote in school board elections, also known as Proposition N. Although Lacy involved school district elections, the Lacy opinion fully supports the legality of noncitizen voting in local elections, including mayoral and city council elections. The Court of Appeal in Lacy rejected the challenge to Proposition N for two reasons. Id. First, the Court of Appeal examined Article II, section 2(a) of the California Constitution, which provides that a "United States citizen who is 18 ... may vote," and determined that "neither the plain language of the Constitution nor its history prohibits legislation expanding the electorate to noncitizens." Id. at 243, 245- 49. Second, the Court of Appeal held that charter cities have home rule authority to expand the electorate in school district elections. Id. at 250, 259. In reaching this conclusion, the court observed that Article XI, section 5 of the Constitution ("Home Rule Provision") grants charter cities broad authority over municipal elections, including "plenary" authority over the election of municipal officers. Id. at 250-52. Because the San Francisco amendment applied to school board elections, and public education has been determined to be a statewide concern for some purposes, see id. at 255, the court spent a fair amount of time in the Lacy decision discussing a different part of the Constitution, Article XI, section 16, and noted that it was originally part of the Home Rule Provision. According to the court, this indicated an