Are You A U.S. Citizen? [Question Asked on Detroit Ballot]

[gnome]

I've been wondering about the check boxes on this year's voters application form. For those who didn't vote in the Primary, this year their are two check boxes on the application form. That is the slip you fill out with your name, address, d.o.b, and signature. You hand the slip over to some older person sitting behind a card table, they double check your info on their list of Registered Voters, and then hand you a ballot.

But this year there is something more.

There are two boxes, one asks if you are a US citizen, the other asks if you are not a Citizen.

When I saw that on the Primary Ballot I was confused as I hand never seen it before. I also recalled that Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson had led an effort to have a law passed in the House and Senate requiring this citizenship question to be part of the voting process, but the bill was vetoed by Governor Snyder.

But Ruth Johnson plowed ahead and had it placed on the registration forms anyway.

This is my question: if I were to check the non-citizen box could I be arrested for a law that is not a law? There is a standing provision on that form that you attest to the veracity of the information and to lie about the information is perjury.

My point here is the Ruth Johnson has effectively vetoed Snyder's veto and by doing so has violated our Constitution by implementing non-laws.

As most folks know I am a Republican, as are both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Snyder, but beyond political label, I believe in our Constitution and I believe Ms. Johnson's extra-legal illegal actions jeopardizes that document.

What would happen if a thousand or 10 thousand citizens checked the non-citizen box. Would Ruth arrest everyone? Would that be an illegal arrest?

Is it possible to violate a non-law? Or does the existing proviso against perjury opens one to arrest?

[JBMcB]

The explanation I've heard is back when they always asked if you'd like to register to vote when getting a driver's license, they didn't check if you were a citizen and non-citizens got on the voting rolls. So, to clear out the people who got on by mistake, they are checking at the ballots.

Don't know if it's accurate or not, but it makes sense. Since you must be a citizen to vote, what's the underlying concern when asking at the polls? You're either a citizen and allowed to vote, or you aren't and you shouldn't be, right?

[gnome]

The explanation I've heard is back when they always asked if you'd like to register to vote when getting a driver's license, they didn't check if you were a citizen and non-citizens got on the voting rolls. So, to clear out the people who got on by mistake, they are checking at the ballots.

Don't know if it's accurate or not, but it makes sense. Since you must be a citizen to vote, what's the underlying concern when asking at the polls? You're either a citizen and allowed to vote, or you aren't and you shouldn't be, right?

You are correct. Here in Michigan you can register to vote while getting your driver's license, plates or any number of other things at the SoS office. And I understand the folks behind the desks at the SoS are not really trained to be the gatekeepers of democracy.

That is Ruth Johnson's point. She has an overworked staff of people, some of which are not citizens, and the ability to game the system is very possible. All of that is understandable and certainly open for a vigorous debate; however, that is not the issue.

The issue is whether Ruth Johnson can circumvent the Constitution by implementing laws not enacted by the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

If the law was signed by the Governor I would have no problem with the question. But we are a representive democracy and we must bend our knees when a law is a law. There are numerous laws I do not like, but I try to obey them, because they are law.

But this is not a law. It is a decree issued by the head of a governmental department. You don't obey decrees.

I find it tiresome when individuals misinterpret their powers and try to impose their will on others. Be that a police officer with bad attitude, a bureaucrat who refuses to accommodate citizens or a mayor who steals from a city.

I believe we all serve the Constitution. It is sacred because it protects our rights and defends us against those who overreach their powers. When Ruth Johnson enacted her will she violated the oath she took to "... Protect and Defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic."

[JBMcB]

The issue is whether Ruth Johnson can circumvent the Constitution by implementing laws not enacted by the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

Isn't the secretary of state in charge of administering elections? Seems like this kind of stuff is in her wheelhouse. The state legislature can pass laws to force the SoS to do administer elections a certain way, but if they don't bar her from doing something in particular, I think she has the leeway to enact checks like this.

[townonenorth]

I'd answer the question truthfully, then question why one would support a party that repeatedly violates laws and citizen's rights so easily. Of course, you have a real winner in the Attorney General's office too, so naturally she's not worried about being prosecuted, is she?

Think about this mindset, this November. I'd rather not spread this type of behavior nationally.

[ThisIsForTheHeart]

I like this idea. It will help with voter fraud. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote period.

[gnome]

I like this idea. It will help with voter fraud. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote period.

I like the idea too. I don't like the idea of haggard and hassled SoS workers are in charge of determining who is a citizen. They are busy folks, there is no way they could have the level of training to determine if supplied documents are fake or real. All that is understandable, but again, that is not the issue.

Ruth Johnson had her allies in the House and Senate submit bills for passage into law. When those bills got on the Governor's desk, he vetoed it. therefore this is not a law, it is a decree.

If you like this decree, fine, but what if a future SoS issues a decree you don't like? This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we protect that document.

[Bham1982]

I like this idea. It will help with voter fraud. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote period.

Except that there's no evidence of voter fraud, and these types of questions do discourage Latino turnout.

IMO this is another bigoted, nativist Conservative initiative. This is yet another reason that Republicans are probably sealing their long-term fate. They have a huge demographic problem.

[JBMcB]

Except that there's no evidence of voter fraud, and these types of questions do discourage Latino turnout.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument why it discourages people who are legally allowed to vote from voting. You're either legally allowed to vote or you aren't. If you're a naturalized citizen, they cover this in citizenship classes. I know several naturalized citizens, and they are 100% clear on if, how, when, where and why they can vote.

[DetroitPlanner]

If you do get arrested no judge can throw you in the clink. Its a simple matter of free speech and civil disobedience. Just produce your voters card. After all, most judges you will go before are elected too!

[Crumbled_pavement]

Seems like a silly question to ask. I think most non-residents know they have no legal right to vote, so if they show up at the polls anyhow then they intend to violate the law. Why should they be honest at that point and say, "yea I'm not a citizen, but I want my illegal vote counted anyhow."

Seems we shouldn't need to train SOS personnel either. We have enormous technological capability, we should have a database that stores the names of those who should be eligible to vote. When someone registers to vote their name should be checked against that database.

Regardless of whether one agrees with my suggestion of a voter eligibility database or not, it seems futile to ask someone intent on voting illegally if they intend to vote illegally. Just deny their voter registration due to ineligibility beforehand and this person shouldn't even be showing up at the polls at all.

[Lowell]

Clarification. Was this question on the ballot or in the sign up process? Stupid waste of voters' time either way. If they are going to ask that, then why not also require voters to answer a string of other questions.

Are you 18 years of age or older?
Are you a legal resident of your voting district?
Are you a resident of Michigan?
Do you have only one voter registration card?

I could go on...

I believe the intent is not so much to suppress voters from coming to the polls, if they are going to vote illegally they are going to lie anyway, but to slow the voting process to make those waiting in line give up because they have to get to work or otherwise be forced to leave before voting.

Any questions like that should be a part of the registration process and never mentioned at sign up.

In a year with several complex referendums having that remain on the ballot would have that effect.

[gazhekwe]

I agree that it is meant to slow down the process and discourage voters. Even if you do not object and give them your Drivers License as picture ID [[also required), they take the time to slide it through a reader. Seems to me that process could check citizenship also, but it does take extra time. If you don't have a DL they can't slide it and must do extra work of some kind to record the information. Note: You already put your name, address and date of birth on the registration. Then the poll worker goes through and makes sure you are on their voter list. If you are on the voter list, chances are you have voted before, so chances that you are illegal drop, since they have the chance to catch an illegal voter every time they vote.

[Goose]

yeah, I WAS gonna vote until I saw all the extra effort they were going to put me through by having me check that extra "am I a citizen" box.... then I stormed out of there..... to be honest, once I read the question I felt intimidated.....

[leapfrog]

I won't answer the question, plain and simple.
i even asked my attorney if they could stop me from voting, and he laughed out loud. THERE IS NO LAW TO ENFORCE THIS.

[Goose]

I won't answer the question, plain and simple.
i even asked my attorney if they could stop me from voting, and he laughed out loud. THERE IS NO LAW TO ENFORCE THIS.

FIGHT THE POWER!!!! way to go man... a true revolutionary!!!! don't let him keep you down!!!!!

[Jason]

My understanding is that you aren't obligated to do anything with those check boxes, and that if you ask the volunteers they're supposedly to politely say so.

But apparently not all of the volunteers understood that and some voters were illegally denied their vote over it. I don't know how many [[probably not very many).

They're not legally allowed to do that, but unless you knock over all the old ladies and feed your sheet into the machine yourself there's nothing you can do about it.

[gazhekwe]

The Secretary of State can make administrative rules, but she cannot enact laws that do not exist.

[Detroitnerd]

Voting is a right.

Think it's reasonable to ask somebody for an ID? OK.

If somebody were speaking in a public place, saying something that was true but not popular to say, and somebody charged in and asked, "Let me see your ID!" do you think:

a) this person is simply concerned with free speech rights not being abused by noncitizens or;

b) this person objects to this person's legitimate rights and is taking initial steps to chill those rights and intimidate that individual?

You know in your hearts that the answer is b.

Oh, sure, there's always some reasonable-sounding "cover" reason for bad actions. But a simple look at the facts makes clear why this is a bad action, no matter how it's portrayed.

Voter rolls are already checked to ensure that nobody who can't legally vote is registered. Year after year, audits of elections show insignificant amounts of so-called "voter fraud," even when those doing the investigating WANT to find it to push voter ID laws.

A good percentage of hard-working American voters simply do not have ID. Due to accidents, disasters, difficulty coming up with the money and means to obtain ID all contribute to this. Voters without the proper kinds of IDs required by this new sort of legislation tend to be very elderly, very young, poorer, blacker, more female, and this, in fact, is the real reason GOP operatives are pushing voter ID laws across the country. For instance, as many as 1 in 6 African-American voters may not have enough ID to vote.

When you get into the right of black people to vote, a lot of well-meaning ID advocates just don't understand the complicated history of voting rights for poor Southerners in the United States. The laws are often calculated to appear "acceptable" to non-poor whites, but, in fact, freeze out poor whites and blacks alike. It's a way to ensure poor people are not represented because the most vulnerable will not be able to vote.

On top of all this, again, it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. There is much more actual ELECTION FRAUD perpetrated by party hacks. Who knows what craziness goes on in those electronic voting machines, whose manufacturers won't let the public inspect.

And Secretary of State Ruth Johnson is an outstate party hack who openly defied her own governor's veto of bad bills. If anybody is flouting the law in this whole fiasco, it is Johnson, who should probably resign for trying to score personal political points by thumbing her nose at her own governor.

[Goose]

Voting is a right.

Think it's reasonable to ask somebody for an ID? OK.

If somebody were speaking in a public place, saying something that was true but not popular to say, and somebody charged in and asked, "Let me see your ID!" do you think:

a) this person is simply concerned with free speech rights not being abused by noncitizens or;

b) this person objects to this person's legitimate rights and is taking initial steps to chill those rights and intimidate that individual?

You know in your hearts that the answer is b.

Oh, sure, there's always some reasonable-sounding "cover" reason for bad actions. But a simple look at the facts makes clear why this is a bad action, no matter how it's portrayed.

Voter rolls are already checked to ensure that nobody who can't legally vote is registered. Year after year, audits of elections show insignificant amounts of so-called "voter fraud," even when those doing the investigating WANT to find it to push voter ID laws.

A good percentage of hard-working American voters simply do not have ID. Due to accidents, disasters, difficulty coming up with the money and means to obtain ID all contribute to this. Voters without the proper kinds of IDs required by this new sort of legislation tend to be very elderly, very young, poorer, blacker, more female, and this, in fact, is the real reason GOP operatives are pushing voter ID laws across the country. For instance, as many as 1 in 6 African-American voters may not have enough ID to vote.

When you get into the right of black people to vote, a lot of well-meaning ID advocates just don't understand the complicated history of voting rights for poor Southerners in the United States. The laws are often calculated to appear "acceptable" to non-poor whites, but, in fact, freeze out poor whites and blacks alike. It's a way to ensure poor people are not represented because the most vulnerable will not be able to vote.

On top of all this, again, it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. There is much more actual ELECTION FRAUD perpetrated by party hacks. Who knows what craziness goes on in those electronic voting machines, whose manufacturers won't let the public inspect.

And Secretary of State Ruth Johnson is an outstate party hack who openly defied her own governor's veto of bad bills. If anybody is flouting the law in this whole fiasco, it is Johnson, who should probably resign for trying to score personal political points by thumbing her nose at her own governor.

please refer to the 2nd amendment, my right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to show ID to buy a gun????

hey, if it were ONLY that easy, just show ID, but its 10000% more difficult to exercise my 2nd amendment right....

please tell me where my 2nd amendment right falls within your arguement???

[Detroitnerd]

please refer to the 2nd amendment, my right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to show ID to buy a gun????

hey, if it were ONLY that easy, just show ID, but its 10000% more difficult to exercise my 2nd amendment right....

please tell me where my 2nd amendment right falls within your arguement???

I think you should be able to buy a gun without an ID. Again, somebody demanding an ID is not just some politically neutral person trying to keep things on the up-and-up. There's always a political agenda to it.

[downtownguy]

please refer to the 2nd amendment, my right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to show ID to buy a gun????

Perhaps because a gun is a lethal weapon? Perhaps you think buying a gun should fall outside of any regulation? Good, let's let all the crazies buy a gun.

[Goose]

Perhaps because a gun is a lethal weapon? Perhaps you think buying a gun should fall outside of any regulation? Good, let's let all the crazies buy a gun.

so just let all the crazies vote!!! why is this arguement different??? H Y P O C R I C Y......

[Detroitnerd]

so just let all the crazies vote!!! why is this arguement different??? H Y P O C R I C Y......

Does that mean you're opposed to the voter ID requirements?

[JBMcB]

Voter rolls are already checked to ensure that nobody who can't legally vote is registered.

Then what happens? Are they purged from the rolls? I've never heard of that happening. Doesn't mean that it hasn't, but I've never seen evidence.

A good percentage of hard-working American voters simply do not have ID. Due to accidents, disasters, difficulty coming up with the money and means to obtain ID all contribute to this.

I don't think you should have to show ID at the polling place to vote, but still, the above argument is nonsense. A state ID card costs $10. If you are on welfare the fee is waived. You can show nearly any kind of document with your name and an address for proof of residency. I knew an "undocumented worker" who got a driver's license with a cable TV bill for proof of residency. He could have registered to vote, too, but didn't.

It's a way to ensure poor people are not represented because the most vulnerable will not be able to vote.

Perhaps it is. I still don't hear an convincing argument as to why a "Are you a citizen" checkbox is keeping legitimate voters from voting. I'll buy the argument that it shouldn't be on there because the SoS overstepped her authority [[according to the articles I've read it depends on your interpretation of the powers of the SoS) But calling it a Machiavellian scheme to prevent people from voting seems hyperbolic to say the least.