In a recent trio of posts to X, Elon Musk wrote that (1) illegal immigrants
“are not prevented from voting in federal elections,” (2) “you don’t
need government issued ID to vote,” and (3) Democrats
“are importing voters.”
To rebut those statements, The New York Times published an article
by Jim Rutenberg and Kate Conger claiming that Mr. Musk is “spreading election misinformation” about “illegal voting by noncitizens” and echoing a “conspiracy theory” spread by former President Donald Trump.
Although Mr. Musk’s words are imprecise, the gist of what he wrote is correct, and the NY Times is categorically wrong.
Illegal Voter Registration
In response to Mr. Musk’s first two points, the NY Times argued
that “federal law
requires identification verification from voters when they register.” The hyperlink in that sentence leads to a document by the liberal
Brennan Center for Justice claiming
that “new identification requirements” in a 2002 federal voting law “may severely threaten voters’ rights.”
What the NY Times fails to reveal is that the Brennan Center document describes
the identification requirements in the law, which don’t require government-issued ID or proof of citizenship—just as Mr. Musk wrote. The document notes that even a “utility bill” or “bank statement” is enough to comply with the law. The text of the 2002 legislation
and the current U.S. election code law
Furthermore, a 2013 Supreme Court ruling
supports Mr. Musk and contradicts the NY Times by explaining that the National Voter Registration Form “does not require documentary evidence of citizenship; rather, it requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.”
In fact, the court’s 2013 ruling
blocked the state of Arizona from requiring “documentary proof of citizenship” to register to vote. Likewise, a 2020 appeals court ruling
prohibited other states from doing the same, and the Obama administration filed a brief
arguing for that outcome.
To be clear, federal law and the laws of all 50 states require
people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections, and federal law
forbids people from falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote. Penalties
for lying about this include up to five years in prison. However, enforcement mechanisms for such laws are limited, and opportunities to get around them are ample.
The situation was summarized by President Barack Obama shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential election when actress Gina Rodriguez asked him whether “Dreamers” and “undocumented citizens” would be deported if they voted. President Obama replied
“Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, et cetera.”
After dodging the fact that “Dreamers
” and “undocumented immigrants
” are not citizens, President Obama’s clear message was that there is no effective way to enforce the law that prohibits them from voting.
And when President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity asked the states
for “detailed, publicly available voter-roll data” that could be cross-checked against other databases with information on citizenship status, states refused to turn over the data and filed a flurry of lawsuits to stop the commission. In the words of California’s secretary of state
“While the commission is allowed to request the personal data of California voters, they cannot compel me to provide it. Let me reassure California voters: I will not provide the Commission with any personal voter data. ...
“Yesterday’s ruling is merely the first in a string of lawsuits challenging the Commission. Those lawsuits send a strong message—the Commission will face opposition at every step of the way from those who are fighting to protect our voting rights, our privacy, and our democratic principles.”
Note that California alleged the commission asked for “personal data,” but in reality, the commission explicitly requested
“publicly available voter-roll data.”
California’s deceptive refusal of the request and the ample openings for noncitizens to vote take on added significance in light of the following testimony
by California Senate leader and Democrat Kevin De León in 2017:
“I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license ... if they got a false green card. And anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
The NY Times also alleged
that “instances of illegal voting by noncitizens are rare
” and supported that claim with a link to PolitiFact—an outfit with a record
of publishing flagrant falsehoods on illegal voting and many other issues.
Although data on violations of laws with weak enforcement mechanisms are rare, scientific surveys
of noncitizens have found that roughly:
• 13 percent of Hispanic noncitizens admitted
they were registered to vote in 2013.
• 14 percent of all noncitizens admitted
they were registered to vote in 2012, and 9 percent said “I definitely voted” in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
• 15 percent of all noncitizens admitted
they were registered to vote in 2008, and 8 percent said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Those rates are only for self-admitted actions, and database matches with voting and registration records show that the actual rates are about twice as high. In 2008, the one year for which Just Facts has full data, 27 percent
of noncitizens were registered to vote, and 16 percent of them actually voted.
The studies that yielded the data above have
significant margins of error
due to relatively small sample sizes, and there are other sources of uncertainty
—some of which may produce overcounts and some undercounts. But given that the Census Bureau estimates that there are about 20 million
noncitizen adults living in the United States, a million illegal votes will be cast in every federal election if only 5 percent of them vote.
As summarized by a 2014 paper in the scholarly journal Electoral Studies
, “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections,” and “this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.”
Some media outlets and “fact checkers” have tried to contest those realities, but a multitude of facts from academic books and journals have shown that their arguments consist of
mathematically illiterate notions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. On top of this, one “fact checker” leveled slanderous accusations
against doctoral scholars who conducted and vetted seminal studies on this matter.
‘The Great Replacement’
The NY Times also asserted
that “Musk implied that Mr. Biden and the Democrats were being lax on immigration because ‘they are importing voters,’ an echo of the ‘great replacemen
t’ conspiracy theory that Mr. Trump was sharing around the same time.”
The hyperlink in that sentence leads to another NY Times article
that blames Republicans for spreading a “Great Replacement” narrative “used to justify an act of racist violence” in a mass murder
of 10 people in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022.
The NY Times article doesn’t even attempt to rebut Mr. Musk’s point but simply calls it a “conspiracy.” However, multiple facts prove that what Mr. Musk wrote is true.
For example, 82 percent of noncitizens who said they voted in 2008 said
they voted for Democrat Barack Obama, while only 18 percent said they voted for Republican John McCain.
Citing figures that would dwarf the number of noncitizens who vote illegally, Eliseo Medina, a former executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a 2009 speech
• the “progressive community” can “expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future” by putting “12 million” unauthorized immigrants “on the path to citizenship and eventually voting.”
• turning illegal immigrants into citizens will create a progressive “governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”
The lopsided votes of noncitizens for Democrats are consistent with the promises
of Democrat politicians
to give free health care, amnesty, and citizenship to people who immigrate to the United States, illegally or legally. The electoral implications of this are further highlighted by facts such as these:
• A nationally representative bilingual poll of 784 immigrant Latinos conducted by Pew Research
in 2011 found that 81 percent said they would prefer “a bigger government providing more services,” and 12 percent said they would prefer “a smaller government with fewer services.” In stark contrast, 41 percent of the general U.S. population said they would prefer a bigger government, and 48 percent said they want a smaller one.
• A 2012 poll
of 2,900 immigrants who were U.S. citizens found that 62 percent identified as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans, and 13 percent as independents.
• A nationally representative bilingual poll of 800 Hispanic adults conducted by McLaughlin & Associates
in 2013 found that 59 percent were born outside the United States, 53 percent considered themselves to be Democrats, 12 percent considered themselves to be Republicans, and 29 percent considered themselves to be independents or belonging to another party.
The fact that illegal immigration, amnesty, and legal immigration help the political prospects of Democrats is incontestable, not a conspiracy.
Beyond attacking Mr. Musk for posting genuine facts about illegal voting by noncitizens, the NY Times article
complains that “X’s fact checkers are long gone” and that the previous “complaint line between the [Biden] campaign and the platform is dead.”
In short, The New York Times is falsely accusing Elon Musk of the very thing that the NY Times
and the previous owners of Twitter are guilty of—spreading misinformation.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.