by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

Voting participation in the U.S. is a call for members of society to be engaged and active in their community.  Through voting we maintain the structure of American society and our institution of government. And it is through voting, then, that we structure our manifestation of participation and responsibilities for our society and  the American political system.  It is a right that is specifically granted, by the way of the 14^thand 19^th Amendment, to all Americans.  However, possessing the right does not necessarily mean that people partake in the opportunity. In fact, there has been a decline in the voter participation at the polls because voters feel discontent with a law, a political system and candidates. As a result, this apathy is contributing to the decline of the American dream.

In our current political climate, we have recognized our parties to be The Republicans or Conservatives, and the Democrats or Liberals.  The Conservative Party has long ruled as the protector of the Constitution and the protector of the American People.  The Liberal Party has proclaimed itself to be the defender of the poor, and thus, used the machinery of government to remedy any social ailment while disregarding personal accountability and individualism.

Many contend that both parties have steered away from issues important to The People in the last few years.  Where the Republicans have been accused of, and with good reason, with wanting things to remain in the status quo in which few rule the Party and forget to represent The People, or change the party’s platform to “include” a more diversified pool of vote. But the democrats are the same. They too have created a hostile atmosphere or disdain for that pool of the population that they claim to protect since the Obama administration has deported over 1.2 million of immigrants (who were mostly Latino) in the last two years.   As a result, this tug of war has created confusion to the average voter, so much that voters now seek to retaliate by doing nothing.  It has created disdain for voting.

Current political candidates are including language never before used to incite attention to their issues; perhaps because no one is interested in the candidates themselves so they create this “shock factor” to attract attention.  Additionally, voters may not be able to connect with the candidate. Romney, for example, speaks to an audience as though they were children.  He gives them morsels of positive pride on what it means to be an American, but offers no real solutions to our problems.  Nor does he exclaim that the road to becoming successful in this country is through voter participation.  That is he fails to encourage the people to speak up for their ideas and elect politicians to “be your voice for your American rights.” Rather, he competes with the current President who sings to his crowd to avoid any discussion of the issues, or how well thought out solutions could unite a country and motivate that apathy in the non-voter.

Furthermore, the only time there is movement in the average American voter is when there is a malicious name calling event that distracts us from the issues ailing this country. In essence, we have succumbed to name calling as a way to motivate and cause that apathy to hopefully get potential voter stirred enough to partake in the elections.

Philosopher and writer, Henry David Thoreau advocated for a non-participation in government when laws were incorrect or immoral.  In his essay, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau wrote that government is best when it is least intrusive and eventually when it does not govern at all.  He believed that citizens must be governed by a chosen group of people who will adequately represent their interests in the best possible means available.  People participate in government by choosing the strongest to lead them, according to Thoreau.

Although Thoreau wrote the essay as a disagreement to slavery and the Mexican-American war, the arguments of his essay were later used to fight injustices by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.   Civil disobedience, then, was the absence of partaking in government if laws were immoral or unjust, as Thoreau believed. Bad poor laws, candidates, and loud and offensive political discourse, therefore, have created apathy among voters, which can interpreted as  a self-inflicted wound on our political system and society.  Thus, our current system is forcing American voters into an unwarranted type of Civil  Disobedience that is driving us to a moral and political decline.

There is, without a doubt, voter fatigue in America because there is confusion over issues, and it is creating a type of Civil Disobedience.  And consequently, as we surrender to this confusion when we allow the few to dictate our taxes and social values. For instance, the Obama Administration wants to dictate what we are supposed to provide for the average American woman (as in birth control).   When we allow this,  we create this illusion that it is for the common good of our society.  It is not.  It is illusionary to think that we ought to pay for any person’s right to have or not to have contraceptives, that is not what our government and its policies are supposed to protect.  Moreover, the religious freedom that is protected by the Constitution is being chipped away with those policies that dictate individual rights over the freedom of religion.

Voters are confused.  So much that we are allowing distractions to help direct our decisions for a candidate but these candidates are creating such bewilderment that we cannot deliver a justification on why we should or should not vote.

There are those who say that to sit by the sidelines and wait for either party to ask for ourvote is the correct method.  In other words, we should make the parties work for our vote.  But to do so gives the rise to selfish tendencies and lack of a conviction rather than a united demonstration for a solution.  For instance, those who believe that our current immigration laws are unjust and are arbitrarily applied to one group have a tendency to speak up in a hostile manner by both Political parties and many grassroot groups.  Yet, while these laws are antiquated at this point and they should be changed,  voters are still confused about which party holds the best solution.  So those not participating are acting on civil disobedience refusing to act until better language is used, a better reform is considered, but the opportunity passes and the desired vote for this group diminishes until they become obsolete.

A better compromise is to take part in either party and work toward a change in the policy and the application of a just law.  Better yet on the issue of immigration reform, how should the average voter participate in civil disobedience on this issue? A recent article demonstrates that one groups that will be negatively impact by voter apathy is the Latino community. As this is an unintentional Civil Disobedience, it can have consequences to either party.  Whereas Republicans talk about upholding the law and deporting all of those who are “illegal”, they are in no position to act upon their rhetoric since they have control of Congress, and business Republicans will never support this type of legislations.  And while they do attempt to create laws at the state level that would allow deportations, those laws are almost always stricken as unconstitutional in courts.  On the other hand, Democrats are acting on these laws by deporting many Latinos through the Secured Communities program, and thus, affecting many a family all under a legal law that allows this to happen.  The Obama Administration is, in essence, following what many say is an unjust law to appeal to those against immigration.

Voters are weary and disengaging from the political movement that has been stained with false issues, poor candidates, heated rhetoric, and few real solutions.  How do we make them fight for that liberty that is crucial to our United States?  The issues have become interlocked with unnecessary comparisons and distractions.  So much that we are not certain what is important in this election.  In following Thoreau’s advice, who stood up to the slavery movement, at what point does the average voter dare to participate or not, so as to voice their desire to fight for the American Dream?

Read more of Linda’s Articles on here page here>>>

by Bob Quasius

The short answer is yes, there are non-citizens voting, but in very small numbers, and less of a problem than other forms of voter fraud. In researching voter photo ID, which Cafe Con Leche Republicans supports, I also researched illegal voter registration and voting by non-citizens. Here I will attempt to put the problem into perspective.

Last night an Irish Central blog posting claiming massive problems with illegal voting by non-citizens caught my attention, prompting me to dig deeper. Similar claims usually turn out to be baseless or wildly overblown.

A network of organizations founded by population control progressive John Tanton often makes baseless claims about immigrants. Tanton founded or led more than 20 organizations that seek to reduce population growth from immigration. Tanton is the founder of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA (with Roy Beck), Center for Immigration Studies, and held leadership positions in groups such as Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, and environmental grouips. Tanton’s organizations have a long history of making wildly inflated and false claims about immigration, in promoting their agenda.

Tanton is known to manipulate Republicans, stoking fears that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, which is nonsense. From a Tanton letter to a supporter:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

From the Irish Central blog:

Colorado IDENTIFIED 12,000 illegal voters on its rolls and ascertained that 5,000 of them voted in the last election. The Republican Senate candidate was narrowly defeated by the Democrat….But how many illegal voters didn’t they identify?

The Colorado connection immediately caught my attention. In 2006, Governor Bill Owens called a special session of the legislature to pass laws to prevent 50,000 unauthorized immigrants from receiving tens of billions of dollars in welfare benefits. There was huge fanfare in the news media, and the legislature passed a tough set of laws to stop all those dastardly immigrants from sucking Colorado dry. Millions of dollars were spent auditing Colorado welfare rolls and licensing and not a single unauthorized immigrant was found receiving welfare benefits or licenses! There has hardly been any media coverage of the failure to find any unauthorized immigrants collecting welfare. No doubt many remember the initial hysteria, special session, etc. Numerous other states have audited their welfare rolls and found just a handful of unauthorized immigrants, if any.

Colorado has a long history of immigration hysteria, led by one of America’s leading xenophobes, Tom Tancredo. Not surprisingly, the claims of massive illegal voting by non-citizens proved to be vastly overblown as well. From the Denver Post:

At least 88 percent of the approximately 1,400 suspected non-citizens run through a federal database by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office were determined to be U.S. citizens, and are therefore eligible to vote.

The office is looking further at the remaining roughly 168 people, but that list may also include people who are citizens, said Michael Hagihara of the state’s elections division.

[...] the number of voters still in question equals less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of Colorado’s approximately 3.5 million registered voters.

Last May, the Miami Herald reported:

Nearly 2,700 potential non-U.S. citizens are registered to vote in Florida and some could have been unlawfully casting ballots for years, according to a Miami Herald-CBS4 analysis of elections data.

Earlier this month, the Tampa Bay Times reported:

U.S. District Judge Willam J. Zloch denied a request from a coalition of voting-rights groups to halt the purge of 198 potential non-citizens.

The Irish Central Blog claims that Loretta Sanchez was elected due to illegal non-citizen votes, when incumbent Bob Dornan lost by just 984 votes:

California lost a conservative congressman when his district was flooded with illegal alien votes. He was replaced with liberal Democrat, Loretta Sanchez.

However, a congressional panel soon whittled a list of 7,841 alleged illegal voters down to 624 after reviewing immigration records, then discontinued the probe since even if all 624 were indeed illegal voters that voted for Sanchez, that would not be enough to change the outcome. As explained later, it’s likely that at least some of the 624 voters were citizens but were flagged as non-citizens due to errors in immigration records, name confusion, etc.

From these and other stories, we can draw several conclusions:

• When politicians make claims of massive voting by non-citizens, it usually turns out to be wildly exaggerated. In all three cases mentioned, the actual numbers of illegal voters after a first pass review turned out to be around 10%, before delving deeper into individual cases.
• Politicians making these claims are usually relying on driving records, when a person may have been a non-citizen when they obtained their license, but later became a naturalized citizen and registered to vote. Drivers records aren’t automatically updated reflect their new citizenship until the driver renews, so without further review politicians often are misled and exaggerate the actual numbers.
• Their first reaction is often to demand access to DHS databases. However, DHS databases only contain records of persons who were in the immigration system at some point, and to search a DHS immigration database one needs an alien “A” number. Native born citizens and unauthorized immigrants with and previous contact with DHS won’t be found in DHS immigration databases either.
• Other times, DHS databases are simply in error. A recent study of Secure Communities found 3,600 U.S. Citizens who had been arrested and held as unauthorized immigrants, despite the use of fingerprints for accuracy.
• There is no question that there are non-citizens who register and vote, either because they are confused about their lack of voting right or they simply break the law. As with any other illegal voters, they should certainly be held accountable. The numbers of non-citizens voting are very small, but there are always close races where even a handful of illegitimate votes can throw an election.

I am more concerned about voting by dead people, fraudulent voter registrations by non-existent persons, absentee ballot fraud, and multiple registrations, though all sources of vote fraud need to be addressed.

Election officials certainly should review records and purge voters who appear to be ineligible, and public confidence in our elections needs to be restored. Recent scandals have shaken the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections.

However, because of strong possibility that a supposed non-citizen may in fact be a citizen, it is essential that voter purges follow a meticulous process, with adequate time for voters to contest purge decisions. No one should be denied their vote without due process.