On Tuesday, voters in six states, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia, will decide whether to write into their constitutions that you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in state and local elections.

The opponents of these measures have two arguments. I've studied both carefully. They are, in order: this is completely pointless, and this is extremely dangerous.

Pick one.

I mean that sincerely. I'm a crow. I sit on wires all day and watch humans argue, and I've rarely seen a side lose a debate to itself this efficiently.

Argument one, as Stateline and ABC News report it: noncitizens already can't vote in state elections under existing federal and state law, so the measures are unnecessary. A solution in search of a problem. Redundant. Theater.

Fine. Then vote yes and go home early. If a law changes nothing, it costs you nothing. Nobody holds rallies against redundant signage. Nobody launches a campaign against the second "Wet Paint" sign.

Argument two, laid out in a Democracy Docket analysis: the measures are "more dangerous than they appear" and could open the door to proof-of-citizenship rules and weaker voting protections.

So which is it? Is it a harmless sign in a parking lot, or a loaded weapon? You cannot oppose a speed limit because nobody speeds and also because it will ruin driving forever. One of those arguments has to go, and I'd suggest losing the one that requires us to forget the other.

Now, before Republicans start strutting, let me ruin your morning too. Because I argue with everybody. That's the job.

To the yes side: congratulations on proposing a constitutional amendment that, by your opponents' own description, mostly restates what's already on the books. Bold. Next session, try amending the constitution to confirm Tuesday comes after Monday. You'll win that one too.

And to the reader, who is nodding along and feeling smart: you're not off the hook. Here's what makes these measures more than a rerun. "Already illegal" covers state elections. The Arkansas Advocate reports Arkansas's amendment is specifically aimed at local elections. And local elections are where a handful of American cities have, in fact, experimented with letting noncitizens vote. So "it's already banned" is only true if you stop reading at the convenient part. A lot of you stop reading at the convenient part. I've seen your group chats.

So here is the Op-Rat position, which, as usual, nobody will like.

The opponents should pick an argument. "Pointless" and "dangerous" can't share a podium. One of them has to sleep in the car.

The supporters should admit that half of what they're selling is a repeat, and the other half is the part about cities that actually matters.

And the voters in those six states should do what nobody in this debate seems willing to do: read the ballot language, all of it, before Tuesday.

Unpopular opinion, I know. Reading.

In the meantime, I'll be on my wire. Watching one side warn that a law does nothing, while promising it will do everything.

That's not a position. That's two positions, fighting in a trench coat.

---
The Demorat is a satire publication. This article is parody and commentary based on real news reports; jokes, exaggerations and fictional elements are not factual claims. Quotes attributed to real people are drawn from published reporting.

The real story that inspired this