AP: Noncitizen Voting Is “Rare” — So Let’s Just Ignore It

Noncitizen participation in U.S. elections, political science professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest found in a 2014 study, “has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes.” This conclusion ought to raise eyebrows and red flags. But not, apparently, at the Associated Press. In fact, wrote the outlet just yesterday, “Illegal voting by noncitizens is rare.” “Yet,” it complains, “Republicans are making it a major issue this election.”

My, coming to mind here could be a twist on what the Left says about abortion. Does AP want noncitizen voting to be safe, illegal, and rare?

The Honor System. Defended by the Dishonorable?

“The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 46.1 million in 2022,” reported the Pew Research Center in July. This means that “immigrants today account for 13.8% of the U.S. population,” the site adds — close to a historical high. Additionally, the Biden administration has allowed eight million-plus illegals to enter our country during the last four years.

Now, note here that citizenship is a legal prerequisite for voting in federal elections — but proof is not required. It’s the honor system. Realize, too, that even AP admits that certain (Democratic) municipalities “do allow voting by noncitizens in some local elections.” In other words, Democrats have already demonstrated the desire to have foreigners vote.

Despite this, AP apparently thinks it odd that, as it writes, “GOP officials have undertaken reviews of voter rolls….” This is even though, as it also informs, “Federal law requires states to regularly maintain their voter rolls and remove anyone who is ineligible.”

So what’s the complaint? That these GOP officials aren’t, as perhaps happens in Democratic jurisdictions, essentially ignoring the federal law?

These Republican officials have taken other actions to thwart noncitizen voting, too. For example, they’ve also, AP writes, issued relevant “executive orders and placed constitutional amendments on state ballots.”

AP implies this is unnecessary. As it tells us, “When people register to vote, they confirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens.” True — but again, no proof is necessary. And if this is satisfactory, why not apply it to other governmental matters? For example, why require proof of citizenship to get a U.S. passport? Don’t we trust people?

How Rare Is It? Is It Rare Enough?

AP sure seems to trust people — selectively, anyway. (That is, not to own a gun or to generally participate in society without identification. But vote away. No one would lie!) For the outlet makes the case that noncitizen-voting concerns are overblown. It writes, for instance:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said this past week that more than 6,500 potential noncitizens have been removed from Texas voter rolls since 2021, including 1,930 with “a voter history” who have been referred for investigation by the attorney general’s office. Texas has almost 18 million registered voters.

AP also provides similar data relating to Ohio, Alabama, and Georgia. But the question is, how definitive is this? Do we really know how “rare” noncitizen voting is?

Crime is often hard to measure. We surely know the precise number of bank robberies in the U.S., as such things don’t go unreported. Murder statistics are almost as precise, but not quite (those whose bodies are effectively hidden are listed as “missing persons.”) As for petty theft, though, what are the real numbers? Much of it goes unreported.

Likewise, how dispositive are the aforementioned state voter-roll reviews? AP’s language doesn’t inspire confidence.

When it writes that Texas discovered 6,500 potential noncitizens, “potential” is a tacit admission that the examination was dubious. Then there’s the federal requirement to maintain voter rolls. About this AP states that it’s “a process that could identify immigrants living in the country illegally.” “Could,” of course, means that the capability exists, but the process may not in fact identify such individuals.

Moreover, all this is predicated on states having the will to ferret out this electoral criminality. Many don’t.

The Real Agenda

Of course, if noncitizen voting really is rare, an obvious question arises. Why not just mount a bipartisan effort to eliminate it so as to put the issue to bed? Just say, “Okay, I consider this much ado about nothing. But if it’s a sticking point, let’s tackle it so we can move on to other things.” Why fight about it?

AP propounds a theory. “Some Democrats contend the [voter integrity] measures could create hurdles for legal voters, [and] are unnecessary,” it writes. But another theory is suggested by the findings of the aforementioned 2014 study, conducted by Old Dominion University political science professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest. To review, the academics write, “Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.” It didn’t just change them randomly, however. As the two researchers also inform:

“Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.”

(Gee, ya don’t say?)

Is it possible at all, even a bit, that this is what really motivates Democrats’ opposition to voter-roll reviews?

Dreamers or Schemers?

Whatever the noncitizen vote’s magnitude, for sure is that foreigners — and even illegals — influence our elections. In fact, this was tacitly admitted by none other than the left-wing Los Angeles Times in 2019. As the paper’s headline read, “How young immigrant ‘Dreamers’ [illegals] made flipping control of the House a personal quest.” The story?

Many California ballot-harvesters who helped flip certain areas from GOP to Democratic control weren’t actually citizens.

Note, too, that these operatives would “help” their apathetic American-citizen targets fill out ballots. In other words, each noncitizen activist got to vote by proxy — perhaps dozens, scores, or even hundreds of times.

We often hear screams about how “every vote must count.” But counting an illegal vote cancels out the ballot of an American citizen who voted the opposite way. And this is just another reason why those opposing voter-integrity efforts are never, ever the good guys.