A state appeals court has ruled in favor of laws in two California cities that allow noncitizen parents to vote in school board elections.
Proposition N, which was enacted in 2018, permits adult San Francisco residents who are parents or guardians of children in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in elections for the Board of Education, regardless of their citizenship status.
The legislation was initially deemed invalid by Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer in July 2022. Judge Ulmer based his ruling on a provision in the state Constitution that states, "a United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote," arguing that this language prohibited noncitizens from voting. However, the First District Court of Appeal has challenged this interpretation.
The First District Court of Appeal stated that the "may vote" language does not restrict the authority of state or local governments, particularly charter cities like San Francisco, to expand voting rights. The court put Judge Ulmer's ruling on hold and allowed noncitizen parents to vote in the November election.
Justice Mark Simons, who wrote the latest 3-0 ruling defending the law, argued that it is reasonable to grant charter cities the authority to expand the electorate if the city's voters determine that doing so would better serve local needs.
However, the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative nonprofit led by attorney James Lacy, opposed the ruling. Lacy challenged the law on two main grounds. First, he argued that neither the plain language of the Constitution nor its history prohibits legislation that expands the electorate to noncitizens. Second, he contended that the relevant constitutional provisions authorizing home rule permit charter cities to implement such an expansion in local school board elections.
The ruling has implications beyond San Francisco. California has 125 charter cities, including Oakland, where a similar policy could be implemented. In November, 66% of Oakland voters approved Measure S, authorizing the City Council to approve voting by noncitizen parents or guardians in school elections.
City Attorney David Chiu celebrated the court's decision, stating that it is "a wonderful victory for immigrant parents, who can continue to exercise their right to vote in San Francisco school board elections." Chiu believes that when more parents have a voice in the direction of schools, it leads to better outcomes for all students and communities.
Justice Simons addressed the plaintiffs' reliance on the 19th-century case Spier v. Baker, which warned against extending the right to vote to aliens, minors, or women. Simons argued that Spier's assertion that the Constitution prohibits expanding the electorate to noncitizens lacks thorough analysis and compelling logic.
James Lacy criticized the decision, claiming that the Founding Fathers never intended for noncitizens to have the right to vote. He expressed disbelief that employees of the Chinese embassy in San Francisco would have an equal right to vote with the citizens of San Francisco on the school board. Lacy also stated that his group will sue any other California city that permits noncitizens to vote.
Login