Extending voting rights to non-citizens is a hot topic from Burlington, Vt., to New York City to San Francisco. Supporters say allowing non-citizens to vote would give members of the community, including large numbers who pay taxes and own property, a voice in local political affairs. Opponents argue that extending voting privileges to immigrants would demean the value of citizenship and effectively disenfranchise legitimate citizen voters by diluting their vote. Ron Hayduk, a political science professor at Queens College, City University of New York, supported expanding voting rights in a commentary “Noncitizens voting? It’s only fair,” published Jan. 1, 2015, in The Providence Journal. … In stating his case, Hayduk made this provocative statement: “But what most don’t know is that the right to vote in this country has never been intrinsically tied to citizenship.”
It’s clear that throughout the history of the United States, citizenship has not always been tied to voting, particularly during the expansion of the West, when non-citizens were allowed to vote.
Conversely, at times in our history, citizenship was not tied to voting for those citizens who were women, Native Americans or African Americans. And in many places, citizens who are also felons are currently denied the
But over time, voting rights have increasingly been tied to citizenship. Today, citizenship is a requirement for voting in national and state elections. At the municipal level, only a handful of communities allow non-citizens to vote, and only on local issues.
Given this evidence, we find that Hayduk overstated his case by inserting the word “never.”
Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate his claim Mostly True.
Full Article: Professor says right to vote in U.S. ‘has never been intrinsically tied to citizenship’ | PolitiFact Rhode Island.