In a political climate marked by intense debate, voters in eight predominantly Republican states are considering measures to reinforce citizenship requirements for voting. While noncitizen voting is illegal in federal elections, these measures aim to amend state constitutions to explicitly state that only U.S. citizens can vote.
These ballot initiatives reflect broader concerns about election integrity. Amidst these discussions, instances of noncitizen voting have been exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, the measures are supported by those who argue for clear constitutional language to prevent any confusion or vulnerability in state election laws.
Idaho
Idaho’s ballot measure seeks to amend the state constitution. It aims to explicitly prohibit noncitizen voting, aligning with existing federal law. While federal law already bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections, this initiative addresses state and local levels.
Currently, some municipalities in the U.S. allow noncitizen voting in local elections. However, Idaho is not one of them. By adding this amendment, Idaho aims to maintain stringent voting requirements at all governmental levels.
Iowa
Iowa’s proposal is part of a broader amendment to update voting age requirements in the state constitution. This amendment, if approved, would state that only U.S. citizens aged 18 and above residing in Iowa can vote.
The current state constitution lists the voting age as 21. This does not align with the federal 26th Amendment, which sets it at 18. The proposed change emphasizes citizenship alongside the age amendment.
Kentucky
Kentucky is considering an addition to their state constitution. This measure would reinforce that only U.S. citizens can vote in state elections.
Kentucky’s current constitutional language already requires citizenship to vote. The proposed amendment seeks to make this requirement explicit and unambiguous.
Missouri
Amendment 7 in Missouri is designed to ensure only U.S. citizens can participate in elections. This measure builds on existing state constitutional language. It currently states that all citizens residing in Missouri over age 18 can vote.
Notably, this amendment also seeks to prohibit ranked-choice voting, further altering the state’s election dynamics.
Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference. Its prohibition could significantly impact election outcomes and voter engagement.
North Carolina
North Carolina’s measure involves amending constitutional language about voting eligibility. It proposes that only U.S. citizens meeting age and residency requirements can vote.
The current text includes all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. who reside in North Carolina.
This change is part of an effort by the state’s GOP-majority legislature to solidify voting requirements.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma’s ballot measure seeks to amend the constitution to say that only citizens, rather than all citizens, can vote.
This proposal comes from the state’s Republican-led legislature and aims to clarify voter eligibility.
By specifying ‘only citizens’, the measure intends to eliminate any potential for misinterpretation in voting rights.
South Carolina
South Carolina proposes a constitutional change specifying that only U.S. citizens who are properly registered can vote.
The existing state constitution allows every citizen meeting other criteria to vote.
This initiative comes from the GOP-controlled legislature, part of a broader national effort to clarify and possibly tighten voting laws.
Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, the legislature has put forth a measure aiming to change the state constitution. This would specify that only citizens can vote, aligning with similar proposals in other states.
Wisconsin’s current constitution allows every U.S. citizen over 18 to vote, pending residency compliance.
The ballot measure’s language change to ‘only citizens’ is intended to align state law with federal standards and prevent future legal ambiguities.
These measures reflect ongoing debates over election security and integrity. While noncitizen voting is rare, the push for constitutional clarity remains a priority in these states.
