Listen to the article
Republican-Led States Push Ahead with Voter Citizenship Requirements
As the U.S. Senate remains deadlocked over President Donald Trump’s call for strict citizenship voting requirements, Republican lawmakers in several states are moving forward with their own measures that could require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration.
This week, proof-of-citizenship legislation won final approval in South Dakota and Utah, while similar bills have passed one chamber in Florida and received committee hearings in Missouri. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation submitted 750,000 petition signatures in an effort to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections, with violators facing potential fines, imprisonment, and deportation. Current voter registration processes require individuals to affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury. However, Trump and his allies argue this self-attestation is insufficient and are pushing for documented proof.
The federal proposal at the center of this debate is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, commonly known as the SAVE America Act. This legislation would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, which could include a U.S. passport, naturalization certificate, or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo ID. The Republican-controlled House approved the bill last month largely along party lines, but it has stalled in the Senate due to Democratic opposition.
The measures in South Dakota and Utah would establish two-tier voting systems. Under these systems, individuals who provide citizenship documentation could participate in all elections, while those who don’t would be limited to voting only in federal contests for president and Congress. This approach mirrors Arizona’s system, which was implemented after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation specifically for federal elections.
Both state bills would take effect upon receiving their respective governors’ signatures, potentially impacting newly registered voters before the November elections. Utah’s legislation goes further by directing election officials to use an online service from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify the citizenship status of existing voters. Those flagged would need to provide proof of citizenship to maintain their eligibility to vote in all elections.
The Florida and Michigan proposals take a different approach. Rather than requiring proof at registration, they would create background verification systems. Michigan’s initiative would direct the secretary of state to review driver’s license records, juror information, and federal data to identify potential non-citizens. Those flagged would face removal from voter rolls if they cannot document their citizenship.
Similarly, Florida’s legislation would mandate that election officials verify citizenship for all registered voters using the state’s driver’s license database, with documentation required from anyone whose citizenship cannot be confirmed.
Proponents of these measures point to isolated incidents of non-citizens attempting to vote. Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, which backs the Michigan initiative, cited a 2024 case involving a Chinese student who registered to vote at the University of Michigan before fleeing the country. “We want a system we can have confidence in,” Jacob said. “The way you avoid big problems in elections is to fix the small problems when they rise up and present themselves.”
However, voting rights advocates warn these requirements could disenfranchise legitimate voters. During a Florida House debate, Democratic state Rep. Ashley Gantt described how her aunt, born at home in segregation-era South Carolina when some hospitals refused Black patients, lacks a birth certificate and has struggled to prove her citizenship.
“A proof-of-citizenship law would stop many thousands—if not more—U.S. citizens from voting in Florida,” said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director at the nonprofit Fair Elections Center. “It requires documentation that a lot of eligible citizens don’t have, or don’t have access to.”
According to a 2024 report by the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, approximately 21 million people—9% of voting-age citizens—lack documentary proof of citizenship or cannot easily obtain it.
States that previously implemented similar requirements have faced significant legal challenges. In Kansas, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens were prevented from registering to vote under a proof-of-citizenship law before federal courts declared it an unconstitutional burden on voting rights. The law has not been enforced since 2018.
More recently, New Hampshire and Louisiana passed proof-of-citizenship laws in 2022, both of which prompted lawsuits. New Hampshire’s law awaits a ruling after a trial last month, while Louisiana’s election commissioner acknowledged in December that their requirement has not been enforced.
As these measures advance in Republican-controlled states, the stage appears set for another round of legal battles over the balance between election security concerns and voting access.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Voter eligibility is a sensitive subject, with valid concerns on both sides. While preventing non-citizen voting is important, overly strict documentation rules could discourage participation. I hope lawmakers can find a balanced approach that secures elections without erecting unnecessary hurdles.
Voter eligibility requirements are a complex topic with valid concerns on both sides. While preventing non-citizen voting is important, overly burdensome documentation rules could deter participation. I hope lawmakers can find an approach that secures elections without creating undue barriers.
Voter ID laws are a polarizing topic, with arguments around fraud prevention and voter suppression. While safeguarding elections is critical, proposed restrictions require close examination to ensure they don’t create undue barriers to participation. This is a complex issue without easy answers.
Voter ID laws are a contentious topic, with arguments around fraud prevention and voter suppression. It’s a nuanced issue that requires careful consideration of all perspectives to uphold democratic principles. I’m curious to see how this debate plays out at the state level.
Agreed, this is a delicate balance to strike. Safeguarding elections is crucial, but restrictions should be narrowly tailored to avoid disenfranchising eligible voters. State-level experimentation may yield useful insights, though federal standards are also important.
This issue highlights the tension between election integrity and accessibility. Reasonable measures to verify voter eligibility are prudent, but they must be implemented carefully to avoid disproportionately impacting certain communities. It will be interesting to see how the debate evolves across different state contexts.
This debate highlights the delicate balance between election integrity and accessibility. Reasonable measures to verify voter eligibility are prudent, but they must be carefully implemented to avoid disproportionately impacting certain communities. It will be interesting to see how this plays out across different state contexts.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. While ensuring election integrity is important, strict citizenship requirements could also create barriers to voter participation. I hope lawmakers can find a balanced approach that protects democracy while preserving access to the polls.