The results of this week’s election brought attention to public concern about noncitizen voting, with eight states approving constitutional amendments that explicitly prohibit noncitizens from voting in state or local elections. The large margins of passage suggest that for many Americans electoral integrity and eligibility remain critical: Idaho (65 percent approved), Iowa (76 percent), Kentucky (62 percent), Missouri (69 percent), North Carolina (78 percent), Oklahoma (81 percent), South Carolina (86 percent), and Wisconsin (75 percent).
These measures might seem redundant, but federal law only bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. They seek to strengthen voter qualification language by making clarifications, such as changing “every citizen” to “only a citizen” may vote.
(CIS recently estimated the potential political impact of hypothetical noncitizen voting at the federal level.)
Why are such amendments deemed necessary at the state level? Much of the impetus stems from three factors: a growing number of noncitizens in the U.S. due to continued mass immigration, thousands of noncitizens discovered on voter registration rolls, and rising concerns over local jurisdictions allowing noncitizen participation in local elections. In recent years, a handful of municipalities, including some in Maryland, Vermont, and California, have allowed noncitizens to vote in local races, such as school board elections. This expansion of local voting rights has created concern that such exceptions might blur the line on voter eligibility. Even if these policies do not affect federal or state elections, the presence of noncitizens on voter rolls raises concerns about the potential for accidental or illegal voting in other races.
These measures are a proactive step to uphold the sanctity of citizenship in voting and to preempt the potential spread of measures permitting local noncitizen voting. Even if confined to local issues, allowing noncitizens to vote may erode public trust in elections and create loopholes for voter fraud. For instance, recent cases in states like Ohio and Alabama have documented instances where noncitizens mistakenly or deliberately registered to vote in violation of the law. Any ambiguity in the law could weaken overall election security.
A major concern is the increasing population of noncitizens in the U.S., which has grown substantially in recent decades due to immigration. This creates more instances where noncitizens might be present on voter rolls either by mistake or, in some cases, due to administrative oversight. For example, in recent months, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen reported that over 3,000 noncitizens were on state voter rolls. This challenge of maintaining accurate voter lists is exacerbated in states with large immigrant populations, where clerical errors or limited verification processes can result in ineligible voters being added to the rolls.
The wide voter support for these amendments — from 62 percent in Kentucky to 86 percent in South Carolina — demonstrates a broad consensus in favor of tightening voting eligibility requirements. The amendments are a safeguard against unauthorized voting, which could undermine public confidence in election outcomes. The amendments ensure that state constitutions explicitly limit voting rights to U.S. citizens and prevent any future attempts by local governments to expand voting privileges to noncitizens.
These recent ballot measures reflect a strong stance among voters to clarify and cement voter eligibility at the state level. Ultimately, these amendments reflect a commitment to maintaining the link between citizenship and voting — a connection that is fundamental to ensuring that those who decide on community and national issues share a vested interest in the country’s well-being.