Wisconsin Judge Tosses Charges Against Noncitizen for Voting Illegally in 2024 Election

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that a federal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in national elections is unconstitutional. If the decision stands, charges against a noncitizen for voting in the 2024 presidential election will remain dismissed. The decision has seismic legal implications that intersect sharply with the nation’s current political divide concerning immigration – both legal and illegal. Can blue states freely offer illegal immigrants the opportunity to vote in nationwide elections?

Noncitizen Voting Protected Against Federal Enforcement

On November 6, Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor of the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted criminal defendant Allan Savier Tejeda Murillo’s motion to dismiss charges under 18 U.S.C. § 611(a) for voting in the 2024 election on grounds that the US Congress lacks the constitutional authority to determine voter qualifications. Judge Boor held that this authority is expressly reserved to the states, and that § 611 “infringes on this state power because it sets a uniform, national voter requirement, namely U.S. citizenship.”

Free with the Daily Briefing

85Essays

Unravel the Constitution

Hamilton, Madison & Jay’s complete case for America, free and searchable in the Publius Reader.

Join Free & Read

Free with the Daily Briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge Boor did not strike down the entire statutory structure as unconstitutional, as the defendant had hoped in his “facial challenge” to the law’s constitutionality. Instead, she acknowledged that Congress could regulate some aspects of federal elections, but not impose voter qualifications such as a citizenship requirement. Thus, she reasoned, the statute was unconstitutional “as applied” to Mr. Tejeda Murillo to the extent that it employs a voter qualification. In response to the government's argument that the law is an anti-fraud measure, Judge Boor wrote: “... issuing a blanket ban on noncitizen voting isn’t a direct approach to tamping down on fraud or fighting corrupt practices.”

 Judge Boor ruled that "[t]he U.S. Constitution unambiguously reserves to the states the power to set voter qualifications in federal elections," and bolstered her position with the Supreme Court decision of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. Inter Tribal stated that the Elections Clause “empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them.” Ironically, Inter Tribal concerned an effort by Arizona to require documentary evidence of citizenship to register to vote; the Supreme Court struck the provision down because it conflicted with federal statutes.

 Judge Boor noted that no states in the nation allow noncitizen voting in federal or even statewide elections, but that historically many states did allow it, and they could do so again. She wrote:

"While the states are now aligned in their requirements that their voters be U.S. citizens, that is the practical effect of their individual choices, not a result of a federal rule…. If any state decided to change their approach, it constitutionally could. These historical notes confirm that the states alone are empowered to decide their electorates."

Replacement theory in Action?

There is certainly historical precedent for noncitizen voting, but leaving that determination to individual states poses ethical challenges that would strain the nation’s federalist structure even absent the current rancor over immigration enforcement. It does not seem “equitable” that large blue states could unilaterally grant illegal immigrants voting access to federal elections, undermining citizens in red states that decline. The Kafkaesque outcome could include US citizens barred from voting due to felony convictions, while illegal immigrant felons could freely vote.

From Liberty Nation News, Trivia, Facts, Check Us Out Stay informed. Today’s news, the Constitution and American history, written for young readers. Visit GenerationLiberty.com

This prospect could inflame political and cultural tempers if liberal states served not just as defiant sanctuary havens but deliberate vehicles for illegal voting in national elections. Several voting districts (the District of Columbia and some municipalities in Vermont, Maryland, and California) currently permit noncitizen voting in local elections. Following the so-called blue wave of the midterms, Democrats appear to be focusing not on affordability or the Iran War, but on social justice policies and Marxist wealth redistribution. Blue-flipped Texas is witnessing initiatives in Houston and San Antonio to restrict cooperation with ICE. Unlike Maryland, Texas shares a massive, porous border with a certain southern nation overrun by fentanyl-dealing cartels.

The Wisconsin decision also carries implications for the SAVE Act and other Trump administration initiatives, including USPS tracking. Do these constitute unconstitutional voter qualifications when imposed by the federal government? If a state passed a law allowing service dogs to vote, would Congress then be prohibited from policing the resulting disenfranchisement of humans in non-canine-voting jurisdictions?

Presumably, the Wisconsin decision will be appealed. If Judge Boor’s interpretation of the US Constitution stands, then only a constitutional amendment could impose a uniform national citizenship requirement as a condition of voting. In the current political strife in America, it might be easier to garner consensus supporting voting rights for cows and chickens, or family pets.