In a notable decision, voters in Santa Ana, California, overwhelmingly rejected a measure to expand voting rights to undocumented immigrants in local elections, with only a little over one-third of residents supporting the proposal. The measure, which sparked significant debate over voting rights and civic participation, would have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections, a shift proponents argued was essential for representing Santa Ana’s immigrant-rich population.
Voters in Orange County, California’s second largest city decidedly rejected the latest effort to authorize noncitizen voting in the state. | @ryanamills77 https://t.co/H66xKGM8Rw
— National Review (@NRO) November 8, 2024
Advocates of the measure emphasized that allowing non-citizens to vote locally would strengthen the community’s democratic voice, given the city’s diverse makeup. Chinese for Affirmative Action, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, stood behind the proposal, arguing that extending voting rights to undocumented immigrants was a step forward in a city as diverse as Santa Ana. In an article supporting the measure, the group wrote, “Immigrant voting cannot wait, especially in a place as diverse and immigrant-dense as Santa Ana. The enfranchisement of any new group of voters has always been difficult, whether for women and people of color, or more recently, youth (in certain municipalities), and in the state of California, parolees with felony convictions.”
Santa Ana’s progressive voting base, which leans heavily Democratic, reflected skepticism on this measure. Despite the city’s political leanings, with 50.7% of voters registered as Democrats and independents making up 23.6%, the proposal failed to win majority support. Santa Ana is widely recognized as one of California’s more liberal cities, yet this vote indicates that even in progressive communities, extending voting rights to undocumented immigrants remains a highly divisive issue.
California has witnessed similar debates before. San Francisco, another progressive city, has allowed non-citizens to participate in school board elections since 2016—a policy that has been legally upheld despite opposition. However, the scope of non-citizen voting in San Francisco is limited to specific issues, such as school board representation, whereas the Santa Ana measure proposed broader local voting rights. Given Santa Ana’s voter response, such measures may face even tougher resistance in other California municipalities.
While immigration reform advocates argue that non-citizen voting aligns with California’s inclusive values, critics contend that voting is an inherent right of citizenship and extending it to undocumented residents dilutes the significance of legal residency. The outcome in Santa Ana suggests that, while there is support for immigrant rights in California, voters are reluctant to extend these rights to non-citizen voting, even on local issues.
Santa Ana’s decision could signal the end for similar proposals in other parts of the state. With this outcome, proponents of non-citizen voting face an uphill battle in winning public opinion, particularly in areas less progressive than Santa Ana.
