Plan not seen as being viable in other areas
GOP ‘would never be for it’
The City Council is considering ways to let noncitizens vote in city elections based on a controversial measure being pushed by Council President Andrea Campbell — but such a concept would not likely gain broad support outside of liberal areas like Boston, say public policy experts.
“Republicans would never be for it. So that would definitely limit its traction elsewhere,” said Jeffery
A. Jenkins, professor of public policy, political science and law at University of Southern California. “Trying to expand the scope generally would mobilize the interests that would oppose it. I don’t think outside of small, liberal areas it would have much momentum.”
Campbell’s order — to explore ways noncitizens who have legal status in the United States can be given the right to vote — is co-sponsored by councilors Josh Zakim, Ayanna Pressley, Lydia Edwards, Annissa Essaibi-George, Ed Flynn, Kim Janey and Michelle Wu.
“All members of a community should have the right to participate and be included in the governance of that community,” Campbell’s order states, noting that Boston has a foreign-born population of more than 190,000, or 28 percent.
Her order also states that nonU.S. citizens paid $116 million in state and local taxes and generated more than $3.4 billion in spending, according to a 2015 city report.
The policy could be difficult to enforce, Jenkins said, because this population is rarely stagnant.
“It would require verifying residency for noncitizens. And all else equal, this would be harder than for citizens, given lower homeownership and more short-term moving around for noncitizens,” Jenkins said.
The idea comes off as controversial because voting rights and citizenship often go hand in hand, he said.
“This policy would unbundle that idea. In that way, it’s radical,” he said. But, he added, “At the same time, noncitizens participate in daily community life, they pay taxes, they purchase goods and services in the community, etc. So giving them the ability to help shape the politics of the community, seen in that way, doesn’t seem as radical.”
The councilor’s measure is an example of immigration politics becoming more extreme and divisive, said Daniel Mulcare, chairman of the political science department of Salem State University.
“The immigration debate is shifting so rapidly in response to the Trump administration,” Mulcare said.
He added that Republicans could use a concept such as this as ammunition and justification for more stringent policies.
“It could be used as the boogeyman for those who are opposed to the proposal,” he said, “as a way to strengthen extremes on the other side.”