A proposal that could eventually allow certain noncitizen residents to vote in Los Angeles local elections is expected to face a key test Monday as city leaders decide which charter reform measures to place before voters this fall.
The proposal was not taken up during Friday afternoon’s meeting of the City Council’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who chairs the committee, told attendees that the panel would reconvene Monday to continue consideration of items that were not heard during the meeting.
Any recommendation from the committee would still require approval from the full City Council before a June 17 deadline to place charter reform amendments on the November ballot.
Among the items awaiting consideration is a proposal by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez that would amend the City Charter to authorize the City Council to establish what he calls a “residential voting” program in the future for local city and Los Angeles Unified School District elections.
Nick Barnes-Batista, a spokesperson for Soto-Martinez, said the councilmember was unable to attend Friday’s meeting and hopes the proposal will move forward when the committee reconvenes Monday.
The measure has emerged as one of the most closely watched and potentially divisive ideas under consideration as city leaders weigh changes to the city’s governing document.
Supporters say the proposal would give a voice to longtime residents who live, work, pay taxes and raise families in Los Angeles but cannot currently vote because they’re not U.S. citizens. Critics argue voting should remain limited to citizens and warn the proposal could further undermine confidence in elections.
If ultimately approved by the voters, the charter amendment would not immediately grant voting rights to any groups. Instead, it would authorize the City Council to create a residential voting program later through a separate ordinance, leaving key questions—including who would qualify, how eligibility would be verified and what safeguards would be required — to be determined in the future.
The charter amendment itself does not establish eligibility requirements. Advocates have discussed extending voting rights to long-term noncitizen residents such as lawful permanent residents, DACA recipients and others with established ties to Los Angeles, Soto-Martinez’s office said.
At a news conference Tuesday to rally support for the measure, Soto-Martinez said the proposal was intentionally written as a two-step process, allowing city leaders to address questions about eligibility and implementation before any residential voting program could take effect.
“Some (Council) members have expressed concerns about who qualifies, how do we do it, and I think those concerns are very valid,” he told SCNG. “Which is why the only thing we’re pushing forward is to give us the ability to do it in the future, so that we can think through these things.”
He said the proposal reflects values that many immigrant communities have long advocated for.
“This is not new for this country,” Soto-Martinez said, pointing to historical examples of noncitizen voting in some jurisdictions. “I understand that it’s very polarizing in this moment, but our democracy has always shifted and changed.”
More recently, several jurisdictions have adopted forms of noncitizen voting in local elections, including municipalities in Maryland, Washington D.C., and cities in Vermont.
In California, San Francisco voters in 2016 approved a measure allowing certain noncitizen parents, legal guardians or caregivers to vote in school board elections, while Oakland voters approved a similar measure in 2022.
The Los Angeles proposal would apply only to local elections that fall under city authority. Federal laws prohibit noncitizens from voting in federal elections, while California limits voting in state elections to U.S. citizens.
The debate comes at a moment when Los Angeles remains at the center of national battles over immigration policy and election administration. The proposal has become a focal point in competing views of citizenship, representation and participation in local democracy.
For many advocates backing the proposal, the issue is less about election law than whether long-term residents should have a voice in decisions that affect their daily lives.
Jesus Ramon Villalba Gastelum, an organizer with the California Immigrant Policy Center, said he has lived in Los Angeles for nearly two decades without a pathway to citizenship. He said residents who live and work in the city should have a voice in decisions made by the local government.
“We know that democracies are strongest when more people participate,” he said.
Villalba Gastelum said he views the proposal as a way to expand participation in local democracy at a time when he believes democratic institutions are under pressure.
Grace McManus, a lawful permanent resident with the Pilipino Workers Center, said she works, pays taxes and contributes to the local economy but currently has no say in choosing city leaders.
“There’s no discrimination for the care that I provided or taxes I paid. I do this faithfully without question,” she said. “Why should there be discrimination when it comes to the polling station?”
Opponents argue the proposal would weaken the connection between citizenship and voting.
“Citizenship should mean something,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The right to determine how our governments are run, how our tax dollars are spent, should be decided by people who are full-fledged citizens of the United States.”
Mehlman said noncitizens who are lawful permanent residents can pursue citizenship and gain voting rights through that process. He also argued that creating a pathway for noncitizen voting could dilute the votes of citizens and raises broader questions about the meaning of citizenship.
Mehlman rejected supporters’ argument that paying taxes should entitle noncitizens to vote, arguing that residents already benefit from public services and that citizenship, not taxation, should determine eligibility to participate in elections.
“The preamble to our Constitution says, ‘We the people’, not ‘we the taxpayers,’” he said.
Mehlman also argued that expanding voting rights to noncitizens could further erode public confidence in elections amid broader debates over election administration and immigration policy.
“Once you erode that, you erode the whole confidence in the process,” he said. “And it does undermine our democratic process here.”
Election experts say many of the arguments surrounding the proposal are likely to be shaped by broader political debates over immigration and election integrity.
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, said local governments across the country have adopted limited forms of noncitizen voting, most commonly for local elections and, in some cases, school board races.
Romero said the Los Angeles proposal faces unique challenges because debates over noncitizen voting are often intertwined with broader claims about election fraud.
“There should be a policy, an open policy conversation in that community about whether this is something that the community wants to do,” she said. “But in the time that we’re in right now, it’s very difficult just to have a policy and value conversation without a lot of misinformation coming into that.”
Romero said the proposal differs from claims of unlawful voting by noncitizens because it would involve a local government explicitly authorizing participation in certain local elections through a legal process.
“What we’re talking about here is local jurisdictions,” she said, “where they have the ability in non-federal elections to be able to open up access to non-citizens legally.”
She also said election officials already tailor ballots based on a voter’s eligibility and could, if directed by law, issue ballots containing only the contests a particular voter is authorized to vote in.
Romero said one of the biggest challenges may be ensuring voters understand what they are being asked to approve, particularly because the residential voting proposal is being considered as part of a broader charter reform package.
“You want to make sure people are fully informed and they know what they’re voting on. So they can make a clear decision whether they support this or not,” she said. “It’s complicated, I think in LA here in this instance, because it’s going to live or die by what happens with the entire package.”
Questions about how a residential voting program would ultimately operate remain largely unresolved.
A spokesperson with the Los Angeles City Clerk’s Office said that many administrative details have not yet been developed because the proposal is still in its early stages.
Similarly, a spokesperson with the City Attorney’s Office said any legal issues would be addressed in a future report to the City Council if lawmakers approve a ballot measure authorizing the city to create a residential voting program.