Proof of Citizenship

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the right to vote in federal elections for the Senate, House of Representatives and presidency is limited to U.S. citizens.

With few exceptions, most state constitutions explicitly authorize only resident citizens to vote in state and local elections.

Currently, there is no state or national database or system to verify the citizenship of voters. Many states utilize self-reported citizenship information from non-citizen residents, but some use the national Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program database at the Department of Homeland Security to assist in verifying citizenship status. Several states attempting to prevent non-citizen voting have enacted laws requiring proof of U.S. citizenship of registrants when registering to vote.

Our current honor system on the part of registrants under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 includes a provision that created a federal voter registration form that requires applicants under penalty of perjury to check a “yes” or “no” box as to whether they are U.S. citizens. However, the federal form does not require any proof of citizenship, and its use has been shown to be ineffective in deterring non-citizens from registering to vote.

This issue has been hotly contested in the courts with advocates for this sensible safeguard against fraudulent voter registration up against a solid flank of left-wing groups such as Common Cause, Project Vote, the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In April 2015, the ACRU filed an amicus brief in Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission at the U.S. Supreme Court that included evidence that non-citizens in Texas were registering to vote using the federal form. On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court denied Kansas’s and Arizona’s writ of certiorari petition, thus letting stand a 10th Circuit ruling that the states may not require applicants using the federal voter registration form to show documents proving citizenship when registering to vote in federal races.

ACRU Commentary

A Great Win for Election Integrity

By Hans von Spakovsky (June 30) Yesterday was a great day for election integrity and everyone (other than the Obama administration and its political allies) who wants to make sure non-citizens don't illegally vote in our elections. Federal district-court judge Richard Leon issued an order Wednesday refusing to grant the injunction sought by the League of Women Voters (and the U.S. Justice Department to its everlasting shame) against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in litigation over a state requirement that individuals registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. As I previously explained to readers of The Corner in February, several well-funded groups including the League and the NAACP filed a lawsuit trying to reverse a decision by the EAC granting the requests of Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama to modify the instructions on the federal voter registration form. The modification would notify residents of those states that they have to provide proof of citizenship if they use the federal form to register to vote. The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with defending federal agencies when they are sued, tried instead to throw the case. It came into court, to Judge Leon's great surprise, attempting to concede the case and agreeing to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction the plaintiffs wanted. Commissioner Christy McCormick, the chairwoman of the EAC, was so concerned over the Justice Department's misbehavior and potentially unethical conduct, that she sent a letter to Leon asking for permission to get outside counsel to represent the EAC. She expressed her "grave concerns regarding the potential conflict of interest and failure of the Department of justice to provide" the EAC with proper representation. DOJ later requested (and got) a protective order sealing her deposition, which apparently included discussions of DOJ's potentially improper behavior and prior involvement in EAC decision-making. Makes you wonder what DOJ wants to hide. In February, Leon denied the request for a temporary restraining order. Yesterday in a 25-page opinion, he also denied the request for a preliminary injunction -- the same injunction the Justice Department wanted to agree to when it tried to lose the case. Leon held that the plaintiffs had not proved they will suffer an irreparable harm from this change in instructions on the federal registration form. He obviously did not put much stock in their claim that this would damage them because their voter registration drives would be less successful and require more effort on their part to educate the public about the fact that you have to be a citizen to register to vote. But as Leon said, "let's be candid; doing so pales in comparison to explaining to the average citizen how the ACA or tax code works!"

Giving Violent Felons the Automatic Right to Vote Is Not Morally Defensible

By J. Christian Adams Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. In elections, just as in society, it is important that everyone follow the rules. Automatically restoring the right to vote for felons is a bad idea. Before felons enjoy the full measure of citizenship, at a minimum, they should seek an individualized determination that they deserve the right to vote. Redemption loses its value when redemption is automatically bestowed. If the goal of felon voting restoration is to integrate felons back into society, it should be an active and contemplative exercise by the applicant seeking redemption, not an automatic one. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's decree that felons will enjoy automatic voting rights in the swing state of Virginia was a bad idea and contrary to state law. When the integrity and credibility of American elections is involved, it is essential that everyone follow the rules. Breaking the rules is particularly corrosive when it appears to have a brazenly partisan aim, as in Virginia. Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. Violent criminals who have shown contempt for other members of society and our laws should not have a voice in the process of writing laws. When a violent felon helps to choose lawmakers, laws will invariably skew more toward the criminal to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen. If you commit violent crimes, in nearly every state you forfeit multiple constitutional rights, including the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Most advocates for restoring rights never seem to get around to Second Amendment rights. That's no accident because the national campaign to restore felon voting rights is first and foremost an effort to help Democrats win elections. Studies have shown that felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and the advocates for felon voting know it, and usually like it. Automatically restoring felon voting rights is the latest instance of normalizing criminal behavior. Voters with violent criminal tendencies are the last thing we need anywhere close to the American election process

Voter ID Laws Do Not Suppress the Vote

By Hans von Spakovsky Polls consistently show that Americans -- regardless of race or ethnicity -- agree that requiring identification to vote is a common-sense way to ensure the integrity of our elections. The repeated narrative pushed by critics that this "suppresses" votes is a myth. That claim has been disproven by the turnout results in states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter ID laws have been in place for years. In fact, these states experienced almost no problems despite apocalyptic predictions of opponents. The number of Americans who don't already have an ID is minuscule -- and every state with a voter ID law gives a free ID to anyone who can't afford one. Opponents who say there is no voter fraud are wrong. As the Supreme Court noted in 2008 when it upheld Indiana's photo ID law, we have a long, documented history of voter fraud in this country -- and it could make the difference in a close election. That is why states should also be requiring proof-of-citizenship to register to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting.

Non-Citizen Voting Case Pits Justice Department Against States that Require Proof-of-Citizenship

By Hans von Spakovsky The free-for-all boxing match between the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, Kansas, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) resumed on Wednesday, March 9. They're tussling over the right of states to require proof-of-citizenship from people using the federal voter registration form. In Courtroom 18 of the D.C. federal courthouse, Judge Richard Leon presided over a sometimes contentious hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would rescind the Election Assistance Commission's change of the instructions on the federal voter registration form to accommodate a request by Kansas. The Sunflower State wants the form to note that Kansans wishing to register must meet a proof-of-citizenship requirement. At the first hearing in this case on Feb. 22, Leon refused to grant a temporary restraining order requested by the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, the plaintiffs who don't want the Election Assistance Commission to mention proof-of-citizenship. Justice Department Unwilling to Defend Election Assistance Commission Normally, the Justice Department would be expected to defend the Election Assistance Commission in court. Instead, the Justice Department lawyers tried to throw the case by agreeing to a temporary restraining order. Leon expressed astonishment at the Department of Justice's behavior, calling it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary." Rather than take that as a warning about the Department of Justice's potentially unethical and unprofessional behavior in refusing to carry out its duty to defend its client, the Federal Programs Branch came into this week's hearing once again trying to lose the case.

A Big Win for Election Integrity

By Hans A. von Spakovsky Electoral integrity has scored big -- District of Columbia federal district court Judge Richard Leon just issued an order denying the request by the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and the U.S. Justice Department for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Thus, there will be no TRO preventing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from instructing residents of Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that they must comply with state laws requiring proof-of-citizenship when they register to vote. Judge Leon said in a four-page order that because "the registration deadlines for the Alabama and Georgia primaries and for the Kansas Republican Caucus had already passed at the time this TRO motion was filed . . . and that the effects of the [EAC's] actions on the ongoing registration process for the Kansas Democratic Caucus . . . are uncertain at best, plaintiffs have not demonstrated they will suffer irreparable harm" before the scheduled March 9 hearing on the request for a Preliminary Injunction. Judge Leon was also "not yet convinced that plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and looks forward to the benefit of full, adversarial briefing on the complex and important issues this case presents." This is a tremendous victory, particularly given the questionable conduct of the Justice Department, which came into court on Monday refusing to defend the actions of the EAC and saying it would consent not only to a TRO, but to a preliminary injunction. Judge Leon castigated DOJ during the hearing and added a footnote to his four-page order about the behavior of Justice after he said he expects a "full, adversarial briefing."

News