San Francisco passed a law allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections. Representative Jeff Duncan introduced a bill that would strip all federal funds from any locality that allows non-citizens to vote. From his webpage,
The Eliminating Foreign Intervention in Elections Act has two key components:
Empowers the U.S. Census Bureau to collect and publish information on which States or localities have noncitizen voting policies in place.
Defunds localities that allow noncitizens to vote in elections for State or local office.
Is this constitutionally allowed?
The constitution has several prohibitions against denying certain people the right to vote. For example the fifteenth amendment "prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's 'race, color, or previous condition of servitude'." wiki
However I can't find any positive statements of who gets the right to vote, or any mention of who decides that. I assume that because the tenth amendment gives the powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, that this is up to the states to decide.
Technically, Duncan's bill doesn't actually prohibit San Francisco from making this law, it just imposes very coercive penalties for doing so. The case of South Dakota v. Dole lays out five criteria for considering if withdrawal of federal funds is unconstitutionally coercive. The last criteria is "The condition must not be coercive." The debate around this fifth criteria seems to center on how much money is being withdrawn. This question might hinge on whether San Francisco gets enough money to count as "irresistable pressure."
I have a somewhat tenuous chain of logic laid out here. Any one of the links could be flat out wrong, or I could be just completely missing the point.