Should voting in California be easier or harder?

from Jim NewtonCalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

There is a problem with the elections in California and Los Angeles. It’s just not who you think.

For some, the problem is deception. A prolonged recount of ballots ending in an election won by Democrats strikes these critics as prima facie evidence that the results are being manipulated. They have no evidence, mind you, but they don’t like the result, so they accept the chicane.

What should offend the public, however, is not false accusations of fraud, but real evidence of voter indifference. In the 2024 presidential election with California’s own Kamala Harris running against Donald Trumpless than 60% of state eligible voters bothered to vote. This is a problem: low voter turnout undermines electoral legitimacy by producing results that large numbers of people – sometimes local majorities – do not necessarily support.

Turnout is still being counted in June’s gubernatorial race and Los Angeles mayoral election, but even those hotly contested primaries failed to draw eligible residents, especially younger voters of color. Only 38 percent of registered voters in Los Angeles County voted last month, according to the preliminary data.

This year offers a number of opportunities for Californians to consider their voting principles and whether they should expand or limit participation.

Those seeking to limit the vote have qualified a measure for the November ballot that would do so require prospective voters to present official identification card if voting in person, or to provide the last four digits of such identification on their postal ballot. If Proposition 39 passes, fewer people may vote, which in theory will help more conservative candidates win.

At the other end of the debate are those seeking to expand the franchise. They have already found success in San Francisco, where some residents are without legal status can vote in school board races. This 2016 measure, which later had to fight its way through the courts, was based on the idea that the vote should be open to those interested in a seat, not as a reward for citizenship.

A a similar measure stalled in Los Angeles recently, but will almost certainly be back on the civic agenda soon.

The common thread is the serious disagreement in California about who should vote and in which elections. Here are a few questions and observations.

The effects of wider participation

First, long counts are a natural result of the state’s favoritism of participation. It’s a reflection of local leaders — and their constituents — who support a process that makes it easier to vote.

The Supreme Court recently upheld this choice, compliance with election rules that allow postmarked ballots on Election Day to be counted a whole week later. this governingamong other things, he supported deep-red Mississippi’s voting system, which adopted a process similar to California’s — a reminder that voting shouldn’t be a matter of partisan dissent.

Second, noncitizen voting redefines participation. It is expressly prohibited in federal elections and in nearly 20 states. But many localities have allowed it in the pastand in recent years, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, and California have allowed noncitizens to vote in local races if those jurisdictions approve.

When the idea was floated this year for some local races in Los Angeles, the usual suspects breathed fire, claiming LA was on the verge of allowing “illegal aliens” to flood the voter rolls. As usual, these claims were false. The measure would allow Los Angeles voters to allow legal residents who are not citizens — green card holders, for example — to run for city council or school board elections.

Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez seconded the idea. He and others argued that opening the franchise to legal non-citizens would recognize the genuine interest legal tax-paying immigrants have in city or school board races.

There is room for disagreementbut the matter is worth considering. A green card holder who has lived and worked in Los Angeles for years and who has children in Los Angeles schools certainly has a greater stake in educational matters than a recent transplant without children. If the theory of voting is to allow “interested parties” to participate, then non-citizen voting makes sense.

After appearing poised to head to the November ballot, however, Soto-Martinez pulled the measure at the last minute, acknowledging it had irked some black leaders who worried about the effects on representation in their communities. The idea will surely come back.

In the meantime, we remind you that these are difficult problems, sometimes with unexpected ramifications.

Loss is not evidence of fraud

Third, losing an election is not proof—much less proof—of fraud.

On June 10, the Dodgers took a 6-1 lead into the 7th inning against the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Dodgers blew the lead and lost 9-8. It must be rigged! The Dodgers were the better team on paper and had the lead.

fraud! Count!

This is ridiculous, of course. Sometimes the occasion slips away. This is why baseball teams play all nine innings.

To state the obvious, this also applies to elections. Losers love to complain, and that was the case in both the state and Los Angeles elections this summer. President Trump responded to Spencer Pratt’s defeat in the Los Angeles mayoral race, predictably claiming the election was “rigged.”

Trump is a well-documented liar, so it’s hardly worth noting, but there was no evidence whatsoever that the city’s election was rigged. The ballots were counted as they arrived, and although they arrived slowly, they were legally counted and recorded.

Late-arriving ballots skewed more liberal than in-person votes, as is typical given that younger, working and more liberal people benefit more from mail-in options in California. The Democratic skew was even more pronounced this cycle, as many Democrats waited until the end to choose between Tom Steyer and Xavier Becerra in the governor’s race.

The state vote ultimately came down to Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton as the top two finishers (hardly what you’d expect if Democrats rigged the process). The Los Angeles count put incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in first place, with City Councilwoman Nitya Raman finishing second (again, a result not favored by Bass, who had hoped to run against the hapless Pratt).

These results don’t reflect manipulation – they reflect math. Becerra’s finish in the gubernatorial primary is no more evidence of fraud than Wyoming’s history of electing Republicans.

The United States has a voting problem, but it’s not one Trump likes to whine about. Federal, state and local elections are not marred by widespread fraud. Illegal immigrants do not vote. The real problem is that too few people are participating, not too many.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.