Sign up for the We the Texans newsletter to get updates on our year-long initiative focused on increasing civic engagement and documenting the Texan experience of democracy. By subscribing, you will receive the newsletter twice a month and stay informed about our efforts to promote active participation in our democratic processes. Join us and be a part of shaping the future of Texas.
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization that provides comprehensive reporting on local election administration and voting access. Stay informed by signing up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletters here.
Republicans are actively advocating for a new law that would mandate Texans to present proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Prominent lawmakers have indicated that this legislation will be a top priority in the upcoming year.
The Republican Party and conservative allies are actively pushing for legislation aimed at preventing noncitizens from illegally voting, as part of a broader national effort. Despite the fact that instances of noncitizens casting ballots are already extremely rare, they argue that such measures are necessary.
Texas Republican lawmakers have already introduced five bills in anticipation of the upcoming legislative session in January. It is still uncertain which of these bills will gain momentum once the session commences. Several of these bills seem to be inspired by similar federal legislation that was deliberated upon earlier this year in the U.S. Congress.
Although the legislation successfully passed in the House, it faced obstacles in the Senate. Additionally, one of the bills proposes the inclusion of a constitutional amendment on next year’s ballot for voters to contemplate. Furthermore, other bills draw inspiration from a law implemented two decades ago in Arizona, the sole state that currently enforces a voter proof of citizenship requirement.
A Votebeat analysis has found that Arizona maintains a split voter roll due to conflicts between state and federal voting rights laws. This split roll includes a small percentage of residents who have not provided requiring proof of citizenship and are only allowed to vote in federal elections. The analysis reveals that certain demographic groups, such as Native voters and young people, are at a higher risk of being disenfranchised due to citizenship documentation requirements.
Experts warn that if Texas were to implement a similar system, it could potentially disenfranchise citizens. This is because research has shown that millions of Americans, for a variety of reasons, lack the necessary documents to prove their citizenship.
Implementing such a law, like in Arizona, could place additional administrative burdens on election officials. They would require extra training and resources to ensure compliance.
Jasleen Singh, legal counsel for the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, a voting rights nonprofit, emphasized that the impact of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote would be far-reaching. She stated, “This will affect individuals of all ages and political affiliations, whether you’re young, old, Republican, or Democrat. It is a matter of concern for everyone.” Singh further highlighted that state lawmakers are jeopardizing the ability of millions of people to meet these requirements, putting them at risk of being unable to register to vote.
The effects of Arizona’s citizenship proof law
This Article Includes
According to federal law, every American voter is required to declare their citizenship when registering, although they are not obligated to provide proof. Voter registrars in counties throughout the nation have established procedures to ensure that only eligible citizens are included in the voter rolls.
According to experts, instances of noncitizen voting are infrequent, and there is no proof that they have influenced election results. Voting generates a comprehensive record, and individuals who are not citizens and unlawfully participate in the process can be subject to criminal consequences, which may include the forfeiture of their residency status and deportation.
Arizona implemented a law in 2004 that mandates individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. This law has been a subject of ongoing legal battles. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona must permit residents who do not provide proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. Consequently, a divided system was established, resulting in the creation of a separate “federal only” voter list.
In Arizona, there is a small percentage of voters known as “federal only” voters, accounting for less than 1% of the state’s voter roll. This amounts to approximately 34,933 individuals out of the 4.4 million active voters who were eligible to vote in the last November election. Upon analyzing this group, Votebeat discovered a significant overrepresentation of voters residing on Native land, college campuses, and the state’s primary homeless campus. Additionally, this group tended to be younger compared to the overall voting-age population in the state. The analysis further revealed that these “federal only” voters were less likely to participate in the November election compared to voters who had provided proof of citizenship.
Arizona has faced challenges in accurately maintaining voter lists. It was revealed this summer that the state had been incorrectly categorizing certain voters as having provided proof of U.S. citizenship, even though they were never required to do so. The confusion arose from the exemption granted to some Arizonans who obtained driver’s licenses prior to 1996. The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office estimated that approximately 218,000 voters were impacted by this issue.
Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement, which has been in effect for two decades, stands alone as the only actively enforced law of its kind in the United States. However, conservative activists and Republicans across the nation have been advocating for additional laws like this one, citing concerns about the potential for noncitizen voting.
According to Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, this move demonstrates political astuteness. He states, “Republicans can also claim to be strong on immigration, border security, and combating illegal voting.”
In the summer, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas proudly announced that the state had successfully removed over 6,500 potential noncitizens from its voter rolls. However, a joint investigation conducted by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and Votebeat revealed that the governor’s claim was likely exaggerated and inaccurate in certain instances.
In October, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that the Department of Homeland Security has been unwilling to assist the state in verifying the citizenship status of certain registered voters. While the federal agency does provide states with access to a database for verifying immigration status, Paxton contended that it is insufficient and imposes a fee for each verification.
What the Texas bills call for
There have been five bills filed in Texas so far, and each one varies in its details.
Senator Bryan Hughes, a Republican from northeast Texas, initially proposed a bill in the 2023 legislative session that would mandate proof of citizenship. Although the Senate approved the bill, it did not receive a hearing in the House. In his analysis of the bill, Hughes referenced a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that permitted Arizona to implement a comparable system. Currently, Hughes has reintroduced the bill as Senate Bill 309, which would assign the responsibility to the Texas Secretary of State to develop a process and regulations requiring voters to provide evidence of their citizenship to the registrar. Despite multiple requests for comment, Hughes did not provide a response.
During a legislative hearing in October, Hughes emphasized the significance of the legislation, stating that it is a top priority. He firmly asserted, “We must accomplish this task.”
In the Texas House of Representatives, Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Republican from East Texas, has introduced House Bill 892. This bill reflects certain requirements implemented in Arizona as well as some from the federal SAVE Act, which is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, and currently awaiting consideration in Congress. Under the proposed legislation, voters would be mandated to present one of the following documents: a certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate, a U.S. passport or passport card, a naturalization certificate, or a consular report of birth abroad issued by the U.S. State Department.
Cain’s proposed legislation would grant volunteer deputy registrars, who engage in voter registration efforts at community events and college campuses, the authority to verify proof of citizenship.
Cain’s proposed bill must go through the state Legislature and receive approval from voters in the following year. Similar to Arizona’s law, which was established through a ballot proposition. Despite requests for comment, Cain did not respond.
None of the bills that list acceptable documents include tribal documents, which Arizona does accept. The legislators did not respond to Votebeat’s inquiries about their willingness to consider the inclusion of tribal documents.
Arizona law took years to straighten out
Experts caution that implementing a proof of citizenship requirement could lead to unintended repercussions for both voters and election officials. It is crucial that such a requirement is developed with great care and attention to detail.
Tammy Patrick, who served as the elections administrator in Maricopa County, Arizona from 2003 to 2014, highlighted the significant effort it took to successfully implement the proof of citizenship requirement. Election officials dedicated years to this process, which involved extensive training for election workers and investing resources in voter education outreach. These measures aimed to ensure that voters were well-informed about the new rules and regulations.
Patrick mentioned that a significant amount of time and resources were dedicated to the verification of voters’ information.
The initial requirement of the law was for naturalized voters to provide a specific number from their naturalization certificates to confirm their citizenship status. However, it was later discovered that this number was not sufficient to verify the information. Additionally, there was ambiguity in the law regarding whether officials could accept an expired U.S. passport as evidence of citizenship, according to Patrick.
As time went on, there was a need to update the law in order to provide clarity on the acceptance of certain documents.
According to Patrick, election officials have the responsibility to verify voters’ information and cross-check it with state and federal data in order to determine their citizenship status. However, he mentioned that the information provided may not always be current or accurate.
According to Patrick, the CEO for programs at the National Association of Election Officials, people often underestimate the complexity of proving one’s citizenship. While it may seem like a straightforward requirement, the actual implementation of such a policy can quickly become complicated and challenging.
Texas voter registrars are grappling with numerous inquiries regarding the practicality and specific details of implementing this requirement in their offices, as well as the obligations it would impose on voters.
In Travis County, which is home to Austin, Chris Davis, the director of the voter registration division, emphasizes the need for lawmakers to carefully assess the compatibility of these rules with the existing requirements that officials are obligated to adhere to.
Election officials may need to update their training materials for election workers if they are assigned the responsibility of verifying citizenship, according to Davis.
According to Davis, there is a concern regarding the responsibility and liability placed on volunteer deputy registrars if they are involved in the process. He questions whether it is appropriate for them to handle important documents such as passports or birth certificates, as these are considered very valuable possessions.
Storing such documentation as part of the voters’ record would make it public information, requiring redaction before its release. This process would take time and likely require additional workers. However, in smaller counties already facing budget constraints, these steps would be much more challenging to execute.
Davis expressed his concerns about the potential unintended consequences and the importance of ensuring the security of these documents. He emphasized the need for the legislature to carefully consider the time required to process these documents.
Natalia Contreras, based in Corpus Christi, covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She can be reached at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
The Texas Secretary of State and the University of Houston have provided financial support to The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. It is important to note that these financial supporters have no influence over the Tribune’s journalism. You can find a comprehensive list of all our supporters here.
Reference Article