Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.
This news analysis was originally distributed in Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter. Sign up to get future editions, including the latest reporting from Votebeat bureaus and curated news from other publications, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
It’s 2025. Do you know where your birth certificate is? How about your passport?
If Republican officials get their way, more Americans will need to know the answers to those questions before they could register to vote. And for millions of Americans who don’t have easy access to citizenship documentation, voting rights advocates say, not knowing the answers will cost them that opportunity.
New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Louisiana have already passed laws requiring that anyone registering to vote provide citizenship proof. Many other states, including Michigan and Texas, are considering it. The U.S. House will consider the SAVE Act, federal legislation to require it nationwide, as early as next week.
And this week, President Donald Trump — in an executive order that’s almost certain to face challenges in the courts — asserted his authority to make the proof-of-citizenship requirement the law of the land, almost by presidential fiat.
Republicans around the country, from Trump on down, have been raising alarm for several years about the threat of noncitizens voting in large numbers, even though audits, investigations, and other checks have found almost no evidence that it happens more than rarely. And they’ve leveraged that message to promote proof-of-citizenship law as an urgently needed solution to this vaporous threat. That is, Republicans argue that noncitizen voting, or the potential for it, is a big enough problem to merit an overhaul to the way jurisdictions across the nation handle voter registration — and big enough to justify the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters who can’t easily comply with the requirements.
We’ve had this debate before. Three decades ago, Congress considered allowing states to require proof of citizenship, and it has revisited the issue since. There’s a lengthy record of arguments over whether the benefits of such a requirement would outweigh the burdens it would place on eligible voters, and also on the state and local election officials who would have to administer it.
Until now, Congress has decided the answer is no.
In 1993, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, designed to make voter registration easier and more uniform from state to state. It was also known as the motor-voter bill, because it established procedures for people to register while simultaneously applying for a driver’s license.
In debating the legislation at the time, Congress considered a provision that would have allowed states to require proof of citizenship if they chose. That provision initially made it into the Senate version of the bill. But then a conference committee ironing out differences between different versions decided that the final legislation shouldn’t include it, because it “would have eviscerated the mail-in registration provisions and stripped the bill of its uniform and nondiscriminatory components,” U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said at the time.
Some House members tried to put it back in, warning about the specter of noncitizen voting. Without a provision explicitly allowing states to require proof of citizenship from people registering to vote, the National Voter Registration Act would be “an invitation to electoral fraud,” declared U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox, a California Republican, according to the Congressional Record. “In fact, it should be called the Illegal Alien Voter Registration Act.”
Under the NVRA, “all any individual in this country, citizen or not, minor or adult, has to do is send in a postcard saying that he is a citizen, that he is of age and that he is qualified to vote,” said U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, a Louisiana Republican who pushed hard to give states the citizenship-proof option, “and this bill prohibits any State from requiring any documentation to the contrary,”
But that’s the law Congress passed, ultimately deciding that allowing states to impose a citizenship-proof requirement was not consistent with the aims of the legislation. The NVRA underpins many of the courts’ deliberations and decisions on the requirements for voter registration, and since its passage, at least some judges have noted the clarity of the congressional record when weighing attempts to require some form of proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works to register eligible voters across the country, was among the groups lobbying against the provision at the time. CEO Celina Stewart said one of the pens President Bill Clinton used to sign the NVRA still hangs in the group’s offices. After Trump’s executive order this week, she said she’s “disheartened that we still have to talk about it in 2025.”
The fact that we are talking about it again, though, suggests that the question of whether proof-of-citizenship requirement is an unreasonable barrier to voter registration is still an unsettled issue. And Trump’s decision to put a proof-of-citizenship requirement in his executive order suggests that he’s determined to get this done, even if the SAVE Act isn’t able to clear hurdles in the Senate.
Stewart said she does not believe that Trump can require proof of citizenship via executive order, or that the SAVE Act is the right way to ensure that only eligible voters can cast ballots. If lawmakers want to ensure clean voter rolls or deter fraud, she said, they need to “go back to the drawing table and figure out a bipartisan way to get that done.”
Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s interim editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. She edits and frequently writes Votebeat’s national newsletter. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.
