Efforts to impose strict proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting, strongly advocated by former President Donald Trump, have encountered significant obstacles at the federal level but are advancing in various states across the country. While the U.S. Senate remains gridlocked over Trump’s proposed legislation, Republican lawmakers in states such as South Dakota, Utah, Florida, Missouri, and Michigan are pushing forward with their own measures aimed at tightening voter eligibility rules by demanding documentary proof of citizenship.
At the heart of the debate is the question of how to verify that voters are U.S. citizens, a requirement already enshrined in federal law. Noncitizens are prohibited from voting in U.S. elections, and violators can face fines, imprisonment, and possible deportation. Typically, when voters register, they must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are citizens. However, Trump and his supporters argue that this sworn statement is insufficient and that tangible proof should be required.
The federal legislation championed by Trump, known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, seeks to mandate documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Acceptable forms would include a U.S. passport, a naturalization certificate, or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo ID. This bill also stipulates that voters must present photo identification to cast their ballots—a requirement already in place in numerous states. Although the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill mostly along party lines, it has stalled in the Senate due to Democratic opposition and the threat of a filibuster.
In contrast to the stalled federal effort, several states have moved or are moving ahead with their own proof-of-citizenship laws. South Dakota and Utah recently passed legislation that would implement a two-tier voting system. Under this system, voters who provide documented proof of citizenship could participate in all elections, while those who do not provide such proof would be restricted to voting only in federal elections—presidential, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House races. This approach is modeled on Arizona’s system, which was established after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that states cannot require proof of citizenship for federal elections.
If signed by their governors, the laws in South Dakota and Utah could be in place for new voter registrations ahead of the November elections. Utah’s law goes further by requiring election officials to cross-check existing voter rolls against a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) database to verify citizenship. Voters flagged by this process would receive notices demanding proof of citizenship to maintain full voting privileges.
Other states are exploring different approaches. In Michigan, supporters of a voter citizenship documentation initiative recently submitted 750,000 petition signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. This measure would not require proof of citizenship at the time of registration but would instead mandate a review process behind the scenes. The secretary of state would be tasked with examining driver’s license records, jury records, and federal data from Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to identify noncitizens on the voter rolls. Those who cannot prove their citizenship would be removed from the rolls.
Similarly, Florida’s House has passed legislation that requires election officials to verify the citizenship status of all registered voters against the state’s driver’s license database. Voters whose citizenship cannot be confirmed through this process would be asked to submit documentary proof.
These state-level efforts reflect ongoing concerns voiced by Trump and some Republican allies about potential noncitizen voting. Although instances of noncitizens casting ballots are rare, there have been notable cases. For example, in 2024, a Chinese student was charged with perjury and attempted illegal voting after registering by using a University of Michigan student ID and falsely affirming citizenship. After realizing the mistake, he tried to retrieve his ballot and ultimately fled the country. This incident partly inspired Michigan’s ballot initiative, according to Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, a group backing the measure. Jacob emphasized the importance of addressing small election integrity issues early to prevent larger problems.
Despite the political momentum behind proof-of-citizenship laws, voting rights advocates warn that such requirements could disenfranchise many eligible voters. Constitutional amendments limiting voting to citizens have generally been popular when placed on state ballots, but the practical implications of documentary proof requirements are complex. During a recent debate in the Florida House, Democratic Representative Ashley Gantt shared a personal story about her aunt, who was born in a South Carolina home during a