ACV Briefing Book : simplebooklet.com

I am a naturalized citizen of the United States. My mother and I moved here from Brazil when I was six and I was naturalized when I was 21. I worked hard for my citizenship and it means a lot to me. I chose to become an American and I chose to no longer be a Brazilian. To be allowed to vote in this country should require a person, if they were not born into citizenship, to make the same choice.Only United States citizens should vote in theUnited States. Period.COVA is on the ballot in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Polling in these states and nationwide shows that the vast majority of Americansregardless of ideology, race, or gendersupport Citizen Only Voting. In this book you will nd all there is to know about the Citizen Only Voting Amendments (COVA) that Americans for Citizen Voting is has been working on for the last two years.Citizen Only Voting is not anti-immigrant as our cynical detractors allege. Naturalized citizens as a group are our most enthusiastic supporters. We’ve done the hard work to become citizens of this great country; we want that citizenship to mean something. To let people vote, who have not made the same commitment to this country is a slap in the face to the people who have.You will hear from some that “non-citizen voting is rare” and that it “doesn’t affect presidential elections.” The people who are saying these things are talking about illegal non-citizen voting in presidential elections. That is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that legal non-citizen voting is happening in at least 19 municipalities across the country. It is legal in four states. These four states — California, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont — have constitutions, like most state constitutions, that do not guarantee the right to vote foronlyU.S. citizens.COVA changes state constitutions to explicitly guarantee thatonlyU.S. citizens are allowed to vote in state and local elections in that state.We advocate for citizen-only voting to safeguard our electoral process. Most of the cities, which have given the vote to noncitizens, also allow people in the country illegally to vote. This is terribly destructive of lawful and transparent elections. Moreover, it undermines our precious American citizenship, the very reason immigrants ock to our shores.Avi McCullahPresidentAmericans for Citizen Voting

Page 3

Page 4

COVA: CITIZEN ONLY VOTING AMENDMENTSCOMMON MISCONCEPTIONS1. Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting so COVA is unnecessary.Federal law does indeed prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections but it does not prohibit them from voting in state and local elections. COVA is for state constitutions to govern state and local elections.2. We require citizenship for voter registration so COVA is unnecessary.Every state (including the four which allow non-citizen voting in local elections) requires the voters be citizens of the United States. However, that does not apply to local elections. The municipalities that have non-citizen voting set up separate voter registration systems for non-citizens.3. COVA is cynical attempt to turn out Republicans for elections.Polls show massive support for COVA among people of all political parties and ideologies. COVA seems to be a Republican issue because of the partisan nature of the legislative votes in many states. Democrat voters support COVA and we welcome any and all Democrat legislators who are listening to the will of their constituents, and voters in their own party. It is worth noting that every Democrat legislator in Iowa voted for COVA twice.4. Non-citizen voting is already illegal.Most people assume that their state constitution already requires voters to be U.S. citizens. However, only twelve state constitutions reserve the right to vote for U.S. citizens. A state constitution must say that only U.S. citizens can vote or it must specically disqualify non-citizens from voting. If your state constitution says that “every U.S. citizen is eligible to vote” that doesn’t mean that non-citizens can’t also be allowed to vote.5. COVA is a reaction to Trump’s claim of voter fraud.COVA only affects state and local elections. COVA stops states and municipalities from legalizing non-citizen voting. COVA also does not deal with voter fraud. Voter fraud is already illegal. COVA has nothing to do with presidential elections.6. COVA is further evidence that Republicans can’t accept the 2020 presidential election.COVA has nothing to do with presidential elections.7. Studies have shown that non-citizenvoting in the presidential election israre and inconsequential.COVA has nothing to do with presidential elections.

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

New York City Gives 800,000 Noncitizens Right to Vote in Local Elections By Jeffery C. Mays and Annie Correal Dec. 9, 2021 New York City became the largest city in the country to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after the City Council on Thursday overwhelmingly approved legislation granting the right to more than 800,000 legal residents. The move places New York City at the forefront of the debate over voting rights, serving as a stark contrast to some states that have moved to add voting restrictions, including explicitly barring noncitizens from voting. The legislation was approved over the objections of Mayor Bill de Blasio, who questioned whether the City Council has the power to grant voting rights to noncitizens. Legal experts expect that the bill could face a legal challenge. Noncitizens would be able to begin to register to vote a year from now. They could begin voting in local elections as of Jan. 9, 2023, according to the City Council. The legislation affects those with green cards or the right to work in the United States; it does not entitle them to vote in state or federal elections. Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, the bill’s primary sponsor, said the law will give more people who live in New York City and pay taxes there a say in how the city is run. “People who are looking to get elected to office will now have to spend the same amount of time in the communities affected by this legislation as they do in upper-class neighborhoods,” Mr. Rodriguez said in an interview. Opponents of the bill say that it will usurp power from citizens and will discourage legal residents from pursuing U.S. citizenship. In Colorado, Florida and Alabama, voters approved ballot measures last year that stipulated that only U.S. citizens can vote. North Dakota and Arizona already formally bar noncitizens from voting. Americans for Citizen Voting, an organization that was founded in 2019 to oppose efforts to allow noncitizens to vote, sent a letter to the New York City Council this week urging council members to reject the bill. “We felt we needed to get involved because this is a growing movement across the country,” said the organization’s president, Christopher Arps. “We are not against immigrants — we believe immigrants have built this country. We just feel people should become citizens before they’re allowed to vote.” Mr. de Blasio has said he would not veto the bill. The bill automatically becomes law if it is

Page 8

not signed in 30 days. The mayor contended that noncitizen voting is a right that the state would have to grant, a position that many experts disagree with. Towns in Vermont and Maryland already allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. Noncitizens in San Francisco can vote in school board elections and several municipalities in Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts are also considering allowing noncitizen voting. In New York, the mayor-elect, Eric Adams, has said he supports the rights of green card holders to vote in local elections and has urged passage of the legislation. But he, too, has questioned whether the City Council has the ability to grant voting rights to noncitizens. A spokesman for Mr. Adams said he would review the legislation when he takes office. “We are not against immigrants — we believe immigrants have built this country. We just feel people should become citizens before they’re allowed to vote.” — Christopher Arps, president of Americans for Citizen Voting Experts say that the New York State Constitution grants voting rights to citizens but does not explicitly prevent noncitizen voting. Noncitizens were allowed to vote in New York City school board elections until the boards were abolished in the early 2000s. There was an effort to stop the legislation from being approved Thursday when Mark Gjonaj, a councilman from the Bronx, introduced a motion to send the bill back to committee. Mr. Gjonaj said he believed there should be a residency requirement of a year, instead of the bill’s 30-day requirement. People with 30 days of residency are “transient,” not a “permanent resident” and not a “contributor,” said Mr. Gjonaj, who noted no on the bill. According to the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, of the estimated 808,000 adult New Yorkers who are lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, or have work authorization, 130,000 are from the Dominican Republic and 117,500 are from China. Laurie Cumbo, a councilwoman from Brooklyn, questioned whether the bill would dilute the voting power of African Americans. “This particular legislation is going to shift the power dynamics in New York City in a major way,” said Ms. Cumbo, who voted no. Tiffany Cabán, an incoming councilwoman from Queens, called Ms. Cumbo’s argument “divisive.” “Expanding the right to vote for some folks does not in any way diminish or tarnish the right to vote for others,” she said. The motion to send the bill back to committee failed after a spirited debate on the floor of the City Council; the Council speaker, Corey Johnson, said that any amendments to the bill would render it “technically dead” because there would not be enough time to vote on the bill during this Council session. The legislation passed by a vote of 33 to 14 with two abstentions. Under the legislation, the New York City Board of Elections, which has faced scrutiny about its handling of elections, would issue a separate voter registration form and provide ballots for noncitizens that only include municipal offices. Eva Santos, 32, who immigrated to the Bronx from the Dominican Republic at 9 years old and is allowed to live and work in the country through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program known as DACA, said she felt a sense of relief and peace of mind when the legislation passed. “I think it’s a big step toward showing other localities that we have the right to be represented, and that we have contributed enough to be represented and have a voice,” Ms. Santos said. “We are New Yorkers like anyone else.”

Page 9

NON-CITIZENS ARE NOWVOTING LEGALLYIN 19 U.S. CITIESA VerifyThis.com investigation found that “more than a dozen municipalities allow undocumented immigrants to vote in some or all local elections.” Yes, over 70% of the U.S. cities allowing non-citizen voting also give the vote to those in the country illegally.On November 5, 2024, voters inSanta Ana, California, will decide whether to allow non-citizens to vote in city elections.Note: The New York City Council passed a measure allowing an estimated800,000 to one million non-citizens to vote in city elections. That measure is currently enjoined as part of an ongoing court challenge.Learn more about Citizen Only Voting at:ONLYCITIZENS.VOTE12345678910111213141516171819OAKLAND, CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAWASHINGTON, D.C.BARNESVILLE, MARYLANDCHEVY CHASE, MARYLANDCHEVERLY, MARYLANDFREDERICK, MARYLANDGARRETT PARK, MARYLANDGLEN ECHO, MARYLANDGREEN BELT, MARYLANDHYATTSVILLE, MARYLANDMARTIN’S ADDITIONS, MARYLANDMOUNT RANIER, MARYLANDRIVERDALE PARK, MARYLANDSOMERSET, MARYLANDTAKOMA PARK, MARYLANDBURLINGTON, VERMONTMONTPELIER, VERMONTWINOOSKI, VERMONT

Page 10

POLITICSSan Francisco can allow noncitizen voting in school board races, court rulesBy Bob EgelkoAug. 8, 2023Noncitizen parents in San Francisco have a right to vote in local school board elections under a ballot measure approved by the city’s voters in 2016, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday. The ruling would also apply to a similar measure in Oakland endorsed by voters last November.San Francisco’s Proposition N, the ﬁrst such measure in the state, was approved by 54% of the voters in 2016 and took eﬀect in 2018. It was ruled invalid in July 2022, however, by Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer, based on a provision of the state Constitution declaring that “a United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.” Ulmer said the language prohibited state and local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote. But the First District Court of Appeal said Tuesday that the “may vote” language did not restrict the authority of state or local governments — particularly charter cities like San Francisco, which have substantial powers of self-government — to expand voting rights. The court, following standard legal procedures, had put Ulmer’s ruling on hold and allowed noncitizen parents to vote in November’s election. “The history of home rule in the California Constitution demonstrates an intent to confer broad authority on charter cities over municipal aﬀairs,” Justice Mark Simons wrote in the 3-0 ruling. “It makes sense to confer on charter cities the authority to expand the electorate where, as here, the city’s voters determine that doing so would better serve local needs.”California’s 125 charter cities also include Oakland, where 66% of the voters approved Measure S in November, authorizing the City Council to approve voting by noncitizen parents or guardians in school elections. Tuesday’s ruling is “a wonderful victory for immigrant parents, who can continue to exercise their right to vote in San Francisco school board elections,” City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement. “When more parents have a voice in the direction of our schools, it leads to better outcomes for all students and communities.” Both measures are being challenged by the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative nonproﬁt. Its founder attorney James Lacy, said Tuesday his organization might appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court but was more interested in raising the issue in federal court with arguments that noncitizen voting dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.

Page 11

“I can’t imagine that the founders of our Constitution expected that employees of the Chinese embassy in San Francisco … would have an equal right to vote with the citizens of San Francisco on the school board,” Lacy said. In the meantime, he said, his group will sue any other city in California that allows noncitizen voting. In response to the vote-dilution argument, the appeals court said San Francisco voters “could reasonably ﬁnd that extending the franchise to noncitizen parents or guardians of school-age children will increase parental involvement in schools, which will in turn improve educational outcomes.”The First District Court of Appeal said that the “may vote” language did not restrict the authority of state or local governments — particularly charter cities like San Francisco, which have substantial powers of self-government — to expand voting rights.Tuesday’s ruling, if it becomes ﬁnal, will be binding on all Superior Courts in the state, although other appellate courts could reach diﬀerent conclusions.Lacy’s organization also argued that the state Supreme Court had disapproved of noncitizen voting in a unanimous 1898 ruling overturning a state law that would have expanded voting rights. The court said state lawmakers were attempting to extend voting rights “to certain classes of citizens outside of those classes mentioned in the constitution. If the legislature has such power, it could extend the right to aliens, to minors, to women. It has no such power.” That language, including its reference to “aliens,” “reﬂects neither a thorough analysis nor compelling logic” and does not apply to the current case, the appeals court said.Simons also noted that a 1926 amendment to the state Constitution, repealed in 1972, prohibited the Legislature from granting voting rights to noncitizens, such as Chinese immigrants, who were then ineligible to become U.S. citizens.“If the Constitution already prohibited the Legislature from enfranchising any noncitizens, there would have been no reason for the voters to adopt such language,” Simons wrote.Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @BobEgelkoBob Egelko has been a reporter since June 1970. He spent 30 years with the Associated Press, covering news, politics and occasionally sports in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, and legal aﬀairs in San Francisco from 1984 onward. He worked for the San Francisco Examiner for ﬁve months in 2000, then joined The Chronicle in November 2000.https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/san-francisco-noncitizen-voting-18285536.php

Page 12

Legal immigrants infuriated by 'nefarious' DC plan to let illegal migrants vote Washington, DC, City Council says bill for allowing noncitizens to vote is now law By Elizabeth Heckman Fox News March 1, 2023 Legal U.S. immigrants are expressing outrage after the Washington, D.C., City Council said its bill to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections is now law. Immigrants Mike Diaz and Alma Ohene-Opare joined “Fox & Friends First” on Wednesday to voice their opposition to undocumented immigrants being permitted to vote so long as they have resided in D.C. for at least 30 days. “Why are we devaluing American citizenship?” asked Ohene-Opare, a Ghanaian immigrant who became a U.S. citizen after nearly two decades of living and working in the country. “What does it mean to be American anymore? Is there anything that differentiates the American citizen from anybody who just comes into this country?” The City Council passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act amid criticism from Republicans. Congress had a 30-day review period, during which lawmakers could have pushed to block the legislation. The review period ended last week, the council said Monday, WAMU reported. The House pushed to block the D.C. law from taking effect, but the Senate ran out of time before the review period ended. Ohene-Opare questioned Democrats' motives behind the voting changes that are “disenfranchising American citizens.”

Page 13

“I've been here for 18 years or more than 18 years, and I've never seen any concerted effort on the part of legal immigrants to push for this kind of rights,” he said. “And so I'm wondering, is there a kind of nefarious purpose behind this?” Diaz, a father of four who lives in California, said he's seen firsthand the left's efforts to change communities by targeting voting laws. "Why are we devaluing American citizenship?" — Alma Ohene-Opare, a naturalized U.S. citizen who immigrated from Ghana. “I was an elected official here in my community, and I've seen some of the efforts that the left has pushed to try to change how we vote and how we change our communities," Diaz said, adding the D.C. legislation should “anger all of us.” “I did it the legal way like many, many have,” he said. “And I did that so I could become a productive citizen, but more importantly, to be able to vote. "It's interesting how when you are given something, you don't respect it the same way you do when you earn it.” Ohene-Opare argued there are many different avenues noncitizens can take to be involved in politics without voting and warned of potential consequences. “We're also legalizing foreign interference in our elections, because if you can just come here and 30 days later be able to vote without any allegiance to this country, what are we going to get?” he asked. "Eventually, the goal is to transform this country fundamentally. And the question is, what exactly are they trying to transform this country into?" Fox News' Louis Casiano contributed to this report. https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-immigrants-infuriated-nefarious-dc-plan-let-illegal-migrants-vote

Page 14

Maryland city approves letting non-citizens vote in local elections By Reuters September 13, 2017 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Maryland city of College Park will allow non-citizens to take part in local elections, ending months of controversy amid a roiling national debate over immigrants and their status in the United States. Council members in the Washington suburb, home to the University of Maryland's flagship campus, voted 4-3 late on Tuesday to approve the measure, city clerk Janeen Miller said by telephone on Wednesday. One member abstained. The resolution was approved after hours of debate and the failure of two counterproposals, with dozens of residents speaking for and against the measure. "It's really difficult when a divisive issue like this comes up in our community. I hope we can move beyond it and continue to work together for a stronger College Park," Mayor Patrick Wojahn, who signed the measure, said by phone. Under the new policy, the city clerk must maintain a separate list of foreigners who are eligible to vote. The measure will be in effect for 2019 city elections. At least 10 other towns in Maryland, a heavily Democratic state, have similar measures letting non-citizens vote. Chicago also allows non-citizens to vote in local school council elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. About one-fifth of College Park's 32,000 residents are foreign born, according to the Census Bureau. City officials said they did not know how many residents were not citizens. The city's measure was first introduced in June, triggering a heated debate and national attention. Council members received threatening messages, and a planned August vote was put off after a contentious public hearing. Republican President Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on illegal immigration and build a wall along the Mexican border. Trump said last week he was ending a program set up under Democratic President Barack Obama that protects from deportation immigrants brought into the United States illegally as children. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/maryland-city-approves-letting-non-citizens-vote-in-local-elections-idUSKCN1BO241/

Page 15

Vermont Supreme Court rules in favor of noncitizen voting BY LISA RATHKE Associated Press January 23, 2023 Noncitizen residents may continue to vote in municipal elections in Vermont’s capital city of Montpelier, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday, stating that such voting in local elections doesn’t violate the state constitution. In its decision on an appeal the higher court upheld a lower court ruling, dismissing the claim. “The statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections,” the Supreme Court wrote. In 2021, the Democrat-controlled Vermont Legislature approved two separate bills to change the municipal charters of Montpelier and Winooski, the most diverse community in the state, to allow legal residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. Republican Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the measures, but the Legislature overrode his vetoes. The Republican National Committee filed lawsuits against the two Vermont cities asking judges to declare noncitizen voting unconstitutional and lost those challenges. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, including races for president, vice president, Senate or House of Representatives. Montpelier and Winooski are among more than a dozen communities in a handful of states — including New York City, and a number of towns in Maryland — that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Seven states, including Ohio, have measures banning noncitizen voting in local elections, according to the group Americans for Citizen Voting. Voting was expanded to noncitizens in the two Vermont communities after local voters approved the moves, proponents said. In November of 2018, voters in Montpelier, a city of about 8,000 residents, approved seeking a charter change to allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections. Voters supported the

Page 16

measure by nearly a two-to-one margin, said Montpelier City Council President Jack McCullough. The city currently has nine registered noncitizen voters, according to the city manager. Montpelier and Winooski are among more than a dozen communities in a handful of states — including New York City, and a number of towns in Maryland — that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Seven states, including Ohio, have measures banning noncitizen voting in local elections, according to the group Americans for Citizen Voting. “We are gratified that our choice to welcome participation by all members of our community has been upheld by the Supreme Court,” McCullough said in a statement. “Our Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and I believe that includes all our residents. I hope this will encourage more eligible voters to register, vote, and fully participate in our democratic institutions.” In Winooski, a city of about 7,300 that is home to immigrants from around the world, 55 noncitizens voted on local issues during the state’s annual Town Meeting Day in March 2022. https://apnews.com/article/vermont-state-government-phil-scott-8ef6bd772536c3fc076315a02a69d3a7

Page 17

Page 18

POLITICS Should non-citizens be allowed to vote in RI municipal elections? New bill would give cities, towns say. By Antonia Noori Farzan Feb. 9, 2023 The Providence Journal A progressive Providence lawmaker wants non-citizens to be able to vote in local elections. Bill H 5461, introduced by Rep. Enrique Sanchez, would authorize cities and towns to pass ordinances allowing all residents to vote in their municipal elections, regardless of immigration status. “People living in our community might not be citizens, but they still pay taxes, still have kids in the schools. They still have to drive around potholes and need police and fire services,” Sanchez said in a statement. “Some neighborhoods like mine have lots of immigrants, and these whole neighborhoods have less of a voice because many people can’t vote.” Rep. David Morales, a fellow progressive Providence Democrat, is the bill's main co-sponsor, Sanchez said. Other co-sponsors include Reps. Karen Alzate and Jennifer Stewart of Pawtucket, Joshua Giraldo of Central Falls, Brianna Henries of East Providence and Nathan Biah of Providence. All are Democrats. Does Rhode Island's constitution allow non-citizens to vote? On the topic of voting rights, Rhode Island's constitution states: "Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or over who has had residence and home in this state for thirty days next preceding the time of voting, who has resided thirty days in the town or city from which such citizen desires to vote, and whose name shall be registered at least thirty days next preceding the time of voting as provided by law, shall have the right to vote for all offices to be elected and on all questions submitted to the electors, except that no person who has been lawfully adjudicated to be non compos mentis shall be permitted to vote." Sanchez said that he didn't think it would be necessary to amend the state's constitution in order to allow non-citizens to vote. He referred questions to Sen. Sam Bell, D-Providence. Bell said that Rhode Island's constitution "affirmatively grants the right to vote to U.S. citizens of 18 years of age or older." "It does not mean that people who do not meet those qualifications lose those rights," he said. The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 24 of the Rhode Island Constitution — which states that the "enumeration of the foregoing rights shall not be

Page 19

construed to impair or deny others retained by the people" — makes that "crystal clear," Bell said. He said that there was "ironclad precedent in American law" for his argument. Bell said that he is not sponsoring the bill, but supports the legislation. Sanchez said that he didn't think it would be necessary to amend the state's constitution in order to allow non-citizens to vote. In past years, lawmakers have proposed allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections if they will turn 18 by the time of the general election, which would raise the same constitutional questions. What would allowing non-citizens to vote look like? Sanchez's bill would give communities the option to pass an ordinance that would allow non-citizens to vote. They would not automatically be required to open up their elections. Only municipal elections would be affected. Non-citizens would not be able to vote in state or federal elections, Sanchez said. The legislation does not specify what proof of residency would be required. Sanchez said that a driver's license or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number — issued to people without Social Security numbers — could be potential options. (Last year, the General Assembly passed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.) The 30-day voter registration deadline laid out in the state constitution would still apply, Sanchez said. He said he wasn't looking to impose any additional residency requirements, such as a requirement that a voter have lived in a community for a certain number of years. "There won’t be any roadblocks," he said. "Anyone who’s a resident and has been here for over 30 days, living in the town or city, would be able to vote in local elections." The bill doesn't just have implications for undocumented immigrants. It also means that an international student at Brown could be eligible to vote in Providence elections, Sanchez confirmed. He noted that New York and San Francisco have already opted to allow non-citizens to vote in some elections. San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote in school board elections, and does not require proof of residency other than a signed affidavit. New York's policy, which has not gone into effect, would apply to anyone who has a green card or work authorization. Both policies are currently being challenged in court. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/09/non-citizen-voting-in-ri-municipal-elections-could-be-allowed-with-new-bill/69884157007/

Page 20

Boston City Council passes measure to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections By Danny McDonald and Vivi Smilgius Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent December 13, 2023 The City Council on Wednesday took a step toward making elections more inclusive by approving a measure that would allow immigrants legally living in Boston to vote in local elections. But the home rule petition, which must be approved by the state legislature to take effect, still has a long way to go before it becomes reality. The initiative seeks to allow immigrants who are not US citizens but live and pay taxes in Boston to participate in municipal elections. The sponsors say that immigrants with “legal status” constitute more than a quarter of Boston’s population and pay on average $2.3 billion in taxes annually. “Voting is an inherent right that this country was founded on,” said Councilor Kendra Lara during Wednesday’s meeting. Councilor Gabriela “Gigi” Coletta voted in favor of the measure, while acknowledging there were concerns about the proposal and that, as a home rule petition that needs State House approval, it would likely die on Beacon Hill, as have other similar measures. That is if Boston Mayor Michelle Wu signs off on it to move over to the state legislature. “This docket is certainly a starting point, there’s no doubt about it,” she said. Councilor Julia Mejia noted that a sizable chunk of Boston’s population is boxed out from participating in local elections. “I want to make sure we are affirming all of us here in the city of Boston,” she said. Councilor Michael Flaherty said officials need to be mindful of legal concerns regarding noncitizens voting. Allowing such individuals to vote in local elections could lead to confusion and unintended consequences, including noncitizens mistakenly registering to vote or vote in federal or state elections, which could jeopardize their opportunity to become a citizen. “For me, that’s too great of a risk to take at this point,” said Flaherty, who voted against it. After city election officials earlier in the week pointed out that the Massachusetts definition of voters is contingent on citizenship, the home rule petition that passed Wednesday included some

Page 21

language tweaks, including referring to the individuals whom the council is trying to enfranchise as “legal voting age residents,” Councilor Ricardo Arroyo told councilors. Additionally, the latest draft of the proposal would allow state lawmakers to edit wording in the proposal, said Arroyo The measure does have precedent, according to its sponsors. Federal law does not allow noncitizens to vote in elections for president and Congress, but does not prevent states or local communities from granting that right. There is currently legislation on Beacon Hill that would extend voting rights in municipal electors to noncitizen voters throughout Massachusetts. The proposal stated that municipalities in Vermont and Maryland, as well as major cities such as San Francisco and New York have given municipal voting rights to non-citizens. Locally, other Massachusetts communities have passed similar home rule petitions, including Cambridge, Somerville, and Amherst, according to Lara. Wednesday’s 8-4 vote featured the moderate to conservative bloc of Councilors Flaherty, Ed Flynn, Frank Baker, and Erin Murphy voting against the proposal. It now heads to the mayor’s desk for approval. A mayoral spokesperson said Wednesday Wu’s office would review the measure. There is currently legislation on Beacon Hill that would extend voting rights in municipal electors to noncitizen voters throughout Massachusetts. At a council working session earlier in the week, Lara forecasted pushback from the state legislature regardless of how legally sound the petition is, saying that “the general sentiment about immigrants in this country” is likely to be grounds for legal challenge. “We want to make sure that it’s legally sound, but it doesn’t mean it’s not legally sound if we receive a legal challenge,” Lara said. “Our office is going to work on making sure we can get this done.” This story has been updated. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/13/metro/boston-city-council-passes-measure-allow-non-citizens-vote-local-elections/

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Frederick leaders approve letting noncitizens vote in local elections A supporter of the policy said noncitizen residents want a say about what happens in their community. They have children in schools, own businesses and homes, and pay taxes By Joseph Olmo, News4 reporter • Published September 20, 2024 • Thousands of people who live in the city of Frederick, Maryland, but are not citizens will be able to cast ballots in the next local election. Frederick’s Board of Aldermen voted 4-1 late Thursday to let non-citizens vote in local elections. Under the historic decision, Frederick residents will be able to vote in local races such as for mayor but will not be able to vote in statewide elections for positions such as delegate, senator or governor, or in federal elections like for president. Similar policies are in place in several other Maryland cities. A supporter of the policy said noncitizen residents want a say about what happens in their community. They have children in schools, own businesses and homes, and pay taxes. “Folks wanna have a say in trash cleanup and investment in parks and public safety and affordable housing,” he said. “We think they should have a say. We think that they are impacted by those things locally and should have a vote on who represents them to make those decisions,” he said. Another man told Telemundo 44 that he works a lot in the city and feels like his voice has been muted. Now it won’t be, he said. Not everyone who spoke at the Board of Aldermen meeting supported the policy. “To allow folks to vote in local elections without having gone through those procedures is very much a token of disrespect to the folks who have taken the time, the resources and quite frankly the blood, sweat and tears to become a naturalized U.S. citizen,” one man said. Just over 6,000 non-citizens will be able to vote for the first time in the city’s local elections. “To allow folks to vote in local elections without having gone through those procedures is very much a token of disrespect to the folks who have taken the time, the resources and quite frankly the blood, sweat and tears to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.” Voters must be at least 18 and must prove they live in Frederick. The next election noncitizens will be able to vote in will be in fall 2025, when city council and mayoral candidates will be on the ballot.

Page 26

CITIZEN ONLY VOTING AMENDMENTONLYCITIZENS.VOTEWHY IS COVA NECESSARY?The current language of every, any,or all has proven insufcient in guaranteeing that only U.S. citizens have the legal right to vote. Just because every citizen is allowed to vote does not mean that non-citizens are not allowed to vote.WE MUST AMENDSTATE CONSTITUTIONS!Passing a statute isn’t enough! A statute may be ruled unconstitutional by the courts and a statute can be changed by any future legislature. ONLY a constitutional amendment will protect citizen-only voting.Learn more about Citizen Only Voting at:ONLYCITIZENS.VOTEPLACES THAT ALLOWNON-CITIZEN VOTINGCaliforniaIllinoisMarylandVermontWashington, D.C.CONSTITUTIONS WRITTENCORRECTLY WHEN RATIFIEDPennsylvania 1776Virginia 1776Utah 1895Wyoming 1889Minnesota 1958STATES THAT HAVE PASSEDCOVA BY A WIDE MARGINArizona 1962 66% – 34%North Dakota 2018 66% –34%Alabama 2020 77% – 23%Colorado 2020 63% – 37%Florida 2020 79% –21%Ohio 2022 77% – 23%Louisiana 2022 73% – 27%ATTEMPTS TO ALLOWNON-CITIZEN VOTINGSan Jose, CAClarkston, GAArlington, MABrookline, MACambridge, MANewton, MABoston, MAPortland, MEDallas Co., TXMultnomah Co., ORIllinoisConnecticutRhode IslandNew York

Page 27

Page 28

CITIZEN ONLY VOTING AMENDMENTONLYCITIZENS.VOTEWHAT IS COVA?The Citizen Only Voting Amendment is a state constitutional amendment that makes it so only U.S. citizens are allowed to legally vote in local and state elections. Right now the constitutions of most states say “Every citizen of the United States who is age 18 and older is eligible to vote…”. COVA changes the language to “Only a citizen of the United States who is age 18 and older is eligible to vote…”. In some states the words “any” or “all” are used instead of “every” but it all means the same thing and is insufcient to guarantee that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. The “every” language establishes a oor for eligibility. Every citizen is eligible to vote but other people may be added on top of that oor. The “only” language creates a ceiling for eligibility – only citizens may vote and nobody else.It is exclusive and absolute.Learn more about Citizen Only Voting at:ONLYCITIZENS.VOTETHE PUBLIC DISAPPROVESOF NON-CITIZEN VOTINGOPPOSE75%NOTSURE5%FAVOR20%ONLY 8% “STRONGLY FAVOR”ALLOWING NON- CITIZEN VOTING.QUESTION:Some cities are allowing non-citizens to vote. Would you favor or oppose allowing people who are not U.S. citizens to votein your local elections?AMERICANS FOR CITIZEN VOTING SURVEY OF 1000 REGISTERED VOTERSCONDUCTED BY RMG RESERCH ON MARCH 9–10, 2023

Page 29

ELECTIONS One Word In Your State Constitution Could Open Up Your Elections To Foreign Nationals But a majority of state constitutions declare that every citizen — not necessarily only a citizen — is an eligible voter. BY: M.D. KITTLE APRIL 24, 2024 In June, Burlington became the third Vermont city to allow foreign nationals to vote. It should come as no surprise that the home of socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders would sign off, and Vermont’s Democrat-controlled legislature would override liberal Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of Burlington’s charter change to let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections. The leftists were overjoyed. “We have a lot more immigrants and refugees, folks who’ve come here who don’t hold U.S. citizenship status, and they’ve been here for years,” Rep. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a Burlington Democrat and leader of the Vermont House Progressive Caucus, told Vermont Public Radio at the time. Burlington changed its charter (and tweaked state law), giving the right to vote to any citizen or “legal resident” foreigner — someone “who resides in the United States on a permanent or indefinite basis in compliance with federal immigration laws,” according to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Scott, a blue Republican governing arguably America’s bluest state, doesn’t have a problem with foreign nationals “calling Vermont home … participating in the issues affecting their communities,” according to Vermont Public Radio. He just doesn’t like the “patchwork of voting rules that enfranchise noncitizens in some towns, and deny them access to the ballot box in others.” He said it “creates separate and unequal classes of legal residents potentially eligible to vote on local voting issues.” The Republican National Committee objected to watering down the idea that citizenship conveys the cherished right of voting. The RNC took a similar charter change in Montpelier to the Vermont Supreme Court. The court was just fine with the refreshed city charter,

Page 30

finding that nothing in the state’s constitution bars noncitizens from voting in Montpelier’s city elections. The Green Mountain State is no island of noncitizen voting in the United States. Currently, five states — California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Vermont — and the District of Columbia allow foreign nationals to legally vote in certain local elections. Leftists across the country are stepping up efforts to grant voting privileges to foreign nationals in dozens of states where loopholes in constitutions can and have opened the door to noncitizen voting. Leaders of the Citizen Only Voting Amendment (COVA) movement will tell you that two little words make a big difference in preserving the “exclusive right of citizens” to vote. It all comes down to “every” and “only.” “You don’t want to be an ‘every’ state. You want to be an ‘only’ state,” declares Americans for Citizen Voting, a nonpartisan election integrity organization. ‘Defending the Value of Citizenship’ Voting is a fundamental right of U.S. citizens, while foreign nationals are legally barred from voting in federal elections. But a majority of state constitutions declare that every citizen — not necessarily only a citizen — of the United States aged 18 or older is an eligible voter. That allows for some wiggle room. “Just because every citizen is eligible to vote doesn’t mean noncitizens are ineligible to vote,” Jack Tomczak, national field director for Americans for Citizen Voting, told me in an interview last week. ACV is leading the charge to amend state constitutions to include citizen-only voting language. “Our issue is legal noncitizen voting in municipalities. That’s real. That’s happening now. That’s a thing.” — Jack Tomczak, Americans for Citizen Voting Four states — Pennsylvania, Utah, Wyoming, and Minnesota — were founded with airtight constitutional language allowing only U.S. citizens to vote in state and local elections, according to ACV. Another seven states have added Citizen Only Voting Amendments to their constitutions by wide margins. Arizona in 1962 became the first state to approve a COVA ballot issue (66 percent to 34 percent). Six states have passed amendments in the past six years, Louisiana and Ohio most recently in 2022. Those ballot questions passed with 73 percent and 77 percent of the vote respectively. ACV and the COVA movement have had some successes of late, as well. Amendment resolutions in Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, and Idaho have passed in their respective state

Page 31

legislatures and will go before voters this November. Each proposed amendment includes language that only U.S. citizens and residents can vote in national, state, or local elections. The South Carolina state Senate earlier this month passed a similar resolution, sending it on to the House. “Today South Carolina took an important step forward in defending the value of citizenship,” said Sen. Josh Kimbrell, the bill’s author, according to a story in Legal Newsline. “We will never allow a non-citizen to vote in any election in our state, but we will make it easy for legal, law-abiding citizens of the United States and of our state to vote in all our elections.” Stalled Amendments The COVA movement has had its setbacks, too. Ballot bills have gotten bogged down in Mississippi, Missouri, and Kansas, Tomczak said. In South Dakota, a Senate committee killed a bill that would have called for a referendum to change the state constitution language from “every” to “only” citizens voting. In the parlance of the South Dakota Legislature, the bill banning foreign nationals from voting was unanimously sent to the 41st legislative day, or the day after the final day of the session. It was 86’d. Tomczak said a state legislature dominated by Republicans didn’t see the need to change the language in the state’s constitution, and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem didn’t seem all that interested in fighting for the Citizen Only Voting Amendment. The election integrity advocate said South Dakota, through its home rule laws, is very vulnerable to municipalities opening the door to noncitizen voting. It’s not difficult to imagine how foreign citizens voting in local elections could wind up casting ballots in state and federal races, despite the prohibitions. “Confusion on Election Day leads to mistakes. If a city in South Dakota legalizes municipal noncitizen voting in the next few months I guarantee that noncitizens, through no fault of their own, will show up to the polls for the General Election,” Tomczak said. A New Army of Voters As millions of illegal aliens pour into the country under President Joe Biden’s borderless America, there is understandable concern about what that means for election integrity. But foreign nationals are already legally voting in local elections. Tomczak said an array of leftist groups are toiling, mostly in the shadows, to expand the noncitizen vote. “Our issue is legal noncitizen voting in municipalities. That’s real. That’s happening now. That’s a thing,” he said, noting corporate media’s rush to downplay the idea of noncitizens voting in federal elections. “Our issue is very real, and it needs to be fixed.”

Page 32

In fact, it’s going on right now in the nation’s capital. In February, Antonia Diaz was among the first noncitizens to register to vote in D.C. under the district’s new expansive voting law, according to a triumphant story in the left-leaning DCist. Board of Election translators and activists are assisting first-time noncitizen voters, according to the publication. Some 50,000 potential noncitizen voters reside in the nation’s capital, according to leftist group estimates. “Many people are undocumented. They’d like to vote or do something, but there is no opportunity. One can only listen or hear,” Diaz told the publication, referring to her previous experiences attending D.C. Council meetings as an aggrieved street vendor who could not vote in council elections. The story underscores what should be apparent to anyone who has watched the left in action: Activists are mobilizing a new army of voters to keep and consolidate power. “Washington, D.C. is actively encouraging noncitizens to vote. This is absurd! We must end noncitizen voting,” U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin, wrote on X. The post from Steil, who has led House election integrity reforms, included a D.C. Board of Elections mailer advising noncitizen residents that they are eligible to vote for mayor, attorney general, members of the D.C. Council, the State Board of Education, and other positions. Constitutionally, Congress has authority over D.C. local affairs. The Republican-controlled House passed a resolution to overturn the district’s new voter law. The Democrat-controlled Senate did not. Most Americans agree with Steil. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research, Inc., found 75 percent of respondents were opposed to allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections. But leftists activists looking to push their agenda aren’t bothered by strong public sentiment against it. In Wisconsin, zero Democrat lawmakers voted for the resolution for the citizens-only voting amendment.

Page 33

“Can you imagine door knocking and trying to explain why you voted against it?” Tomczak said. “We are encouraging citizens to ask their candidates where they stand on citizen only voting.” ‘Prerogative of Citizenship’ While the idea of foreign nationals voting in local elections seems unacceptable to most, the movement to legalize noncitizen voting marches on. New York City passed a bill allowing noncitizen permanent residents to vote in municipal elections. A New York court earlier this year found the law unconstitutional; the city council is appealing that decision. In San Francisco, noncitizen parents, including illegal aliens, may vote in school board elections. But even far-left former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed a bill in 2013 that sought to allow noncitizens to serve on juries, understood voting is exclusively a right of citizenship. Vetoing that bill, the Democrat said: “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” For the nearly three dozen states that grant voting rights to “every” and not “only” citizens, the battle over that quintessential prerogative is becoming more pitched. Tomczak said he’s confident in the COVA campaigns in many of those states. “But that doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy,” he said. “We have the benefit of being right and being able to easily prove that COVA is necessary. The difficult part is convincing people to do the right thing when their priorities might be pulling them in another direction.” Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin. https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/24/one-word-in-your-state-constitution-could-open-up-your-elections-to-foreign-nationals/

Page 34

Page 35

By Hayden Ludwig May 2, 2024 Voter suppression is real—and it’s happening in blue states and ultra-“progressive” cities across America. Non-citizen voting is the left’s latest social justice craze, one that’s canceling out the constitutionally guaranteed votes of tens of thousands of American citizens, including naturalized immigrants who worked hard to lawfully obtain their citizenship. Fortunately, there’s a cure. I spoke with Paul Jacob, president of the Americans for Citizen Voting PAC, which is active across the nation to protect citizen voting rights by banning non-citizens from casting a ballot—including the illegal aliens pouring through our open borders. “Americans should be very concerned about the threat of non-citizens voting in our elections, even in states where it’s not yet legal,” he commented via email. To date, the Left’s campaigns have focused on Democrat-controlled states like California and New York, but it’s only a matter of time before they turn to Republican states as well. “Many on the Left clearly want non-citizens to vote,” Jacob explained. “After a Citizen Only Voting Amendment passed the Texas Senate 29–1 earlier this year, Democrats blocked it in the House. Every Democrat in Georgia voted against a similar amendment in the legislature this year. And in Vermont, Democrats overrode the Republican governor’s veto to award non-citizens the vote in three cities. “Now is the time to make clear that only U.S. citizens should vote before liberal cities in other states start handing the franchise away to non-citizens,” Jacob says. Non-citizen voting is virtually non-existent outside the United States, though some European Union (EU) countries allow other EU citizens to vote locally under strict residency conditions. For many American conservatives, however, it’s self-evident that only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections—after all, isn’t that how we’ve always done it?

Page 36

The answer, of course, is yes—until the radicalized, post-Obama Democratic Party realized it needed millions of new voters to stay viable outside Manhattan and Hollywood. For the left, choosing between abandoning socialism or importing a new electorate was no choice at all. And, around 2015, they found just the loophole to exploit. Congress and President Bill Clinton outlawed non-citizen voting in 1996 for federal elections, but ignored state and local elections as a non-issue (as it was at the time). All 50 state constitutions similarly mention U.S. citizenship with regard to voting, but just 11 explicitly say non-citizens cannot vote—and far-left activists have eagerly built their legal reasoning on that “oversight.” Many conservatives are only now waking up to this reality. “That’s why we’re working in the other 39 states,” Jacob said. “But states controlled by Democrats have been very hostile to our efforts.” So Americans for Citizen Voting has concentrated its work in 15 states with a receptive Republican legislature or which allow ballot initiatives, such as Wisconsin and Iowa. Like every election “reform” proposed by Democratic lawmakers in the past decade, these initiatives originated not from politicians but from the legion of professional activist groups that have enormous (and enormously underappreciated) sway over what’s mainstream in the Democratic Party. That process began roughly a decade ago with gutting photo ID requirements in elections, hiding the existence of non-citizen voter fraud, and imposing automatic voter registration laws dramatically to expand the pool of registered Democratic voters—legal or otherwise. Collectively, each policy is designed to assist the left’s sophisticated ballot harvesting machine months before Election Day while naïve Republicans rely on voters to get themselves to the polls on the second Tuesday of November. The virus initially spread to California. San Francisco voters narrowly passed a 2016 initiative authorizing “non-citizen residents” with kids in public schools to vote in school board races; neighboring Oakland followed in 2022. Currently 16 cities in four states allow non-citizen voting, including by illegal aliens. These aren’t hotly contested seats with politicians desperate for more voters. Nor does anyone expect non-citizen voters to be more than a tiny percentage of overall turnout—yet. But the left thinks generationally while the right too often thinks in terms of the next election. Notice the bigger project here: Legalizing voting in all elections nationwide for the record 51 million non-citizens living in the United States, illegal aliens included. That starts with quietly normalizing voting by unassimilated foreigners with no stake in our country’s future, blurring the lines between citizens and everyone else. In 2022, the District of Columbia Council unanimously (with a single abstention) legalized non-citizen voting for all local elections to expand “democracy,” including voting foreign embassy staff. “So the Russian or Chinese ambassador can vote in D.C.,” Jacob noted. “I like to point out that if an invading army took and held the District of Columbia for 30 days, under this law those occupying soldiers would lawfully be able to vote in D.C. elections.” When conservatives challenged the law for “dilut[ing] the vote of every U.S. citizen voter in the

Page 37

District,” Obama-nominated judge Amy Berman Jackson simply tossed the suit because the plaintiffs “lacked standing.” If that sounds crazy, it’s the Democratic Party’s vision for voting in all states and, eventually, in federal races. What’s fringe today is mainstream tomorrow, and not by accident. Don’t expect them to admit it, though. Leftists want to have it both ways: There’s no non-citizen voting going on, we’re told, and if there is, well, we should want more of that “democracy.” If that’s confusing to most Americans, all the better. “Republicans aim to stop non-citizen voting in federal elections. It’s already illegal,” NPR sneered earlier this month, referring to a push by Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson to require documented proof of citizenship when registering to vote anywhere in the country. But while the left mocks these “unfounded” and supposedly un-evidenced claims—relying on talking points from “dark money” fronts like the Arabella-spawned Voting Rights Lab—genuine experts have detailed how illegal aliens have been voting in elections for years. Census Bureau data shows that roughly 2.2 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election, according to the reliably nonpartisan fact-checking website Just Facts. Later analysis showed that illegal votes by non-citizens netted Joe Biden tens of thousands of votes in 7 battleground states in 2020, more than enough to defeat Trump. RealClearPolitics analyst Sean Trende has also demonstrated that larger numbers of non-citizens increase the probability that a district will elect a Democrat. A top Black Lives Matter group goes further, arguing that the “enfranchisement of...undocumented people” (i.e. illegal aliens) is key to its “vision for black lives.” (Figure that one out.) Districts and states with lots of non-citizens, legal or otherwise, also pilfer representation from districts with few-to-no non-citizens. Recall that non-citizens are counted in the decennial census, which determines how many House seats each state gets as well as its votes in the Electoral College to determine the next president. Is that fair? Paul Jacob doesn’t think so. “The fact that states like California and New York have sanctuary cities and are in effect encouraging non-citizens to come live there provides them with more representatives in Congress, and therefore greater representation,” he explained. He hopes the push for citizen-only voting will “spark more discussion on the way certain states are gaining additional political power through open border policies.” This writer has traced well-funded lobbying campaigns by the Arabella “dark money” network to kill bills basing district maps on the number of eligible voters instead of the total population—all of them in red or purple states. When Trump simply tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, the left unleashed its potent army of lawyers to shut it down. Nancy Pelosi called the measure a cynical effort to “make America white again.” It worked. “America wins,” the government-funded Brookings Institute quickly cheered after the Trump administration gave up.

Page 38

Yet the past decade should teach us that, even with an ocean of money, an army of lawyers, and a legion of battle-ready activists, Democrats only barely win elections in many parts of the country. In other words, the left needs that high-powered election machine just to eke out the barest victory in normal America—like the nail-biter that put Joe Biden in the White House in 2020. Republicans, in contrast, have been fighting blindfolded with one hand tied behind the back. What happens when patriots get serious about building their own get-out-the-vote machine? Polling is firmly on the conservatives’ side. Fully 75 percent of voters oppose non-citizen voting in their local elections—59 percent say “strongly”—compared with just 20 percent who support it—8 percent say “strongly”—and 69 percent of voters favor Congress’s actions to stop non-citizens voting in the District of Columbia, according to a mid-2023 survey. It’s even higher in swing states, with 79 percent of voters in North Carolina and 80 percent in Georgia agreeing that “only U.S. citizens should vote in elections.” So far, 6 states—Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Alabama, Louisiana, and North Dakota—have passed citizen-only voting amendments in recent years, and by thumping margins. The one to watch is blue Colorado, where voters approved a 2020 initiative 63–37 percent with a winning margin of 814,000 votes. Conservatives were unified in their messaging about enforcing the “original intent of the Colorado constitution,” while the Left lamely argued the measure would prohibit 17-year-olds from voting in primaries. It didn’t hurt that conservatives outspent their opponents for once, although the Colorado campaign only cost $1.4 million—a steal compared to the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars campaigns spent on ballot initiatives in 2020. House Republicans are noticing, too, as Rep. H. Morgan Griffith of Virginia introduced a bill in mid-April (H.R. 4460) specifying that “no State should permit non-citizens to cast ballots in State or local elections.” Jacob is confident that the movement is catching fire. “Already in 2024,” he said, “2 million Republicans in the Texas March primary voted to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. 96 percent voted in favor. “And so far, four more states—Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, and Idaho—have placed Citizen-Only Voting Amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot. We expect another four or five states to do so as well, including North Carolina.” If he’s right, we should toast “progressives” for creating their own worst enemy. _______________ Hayden Ludwig is the director of policy research for Restoration of America.

Page 39

Page 40

Americans for Citizen Voting (ACV), a grassroots organization working to block non-citizensvoting in our elections, held a press conference on Sept. 4 at the National Press Club inWashington, D.C., to highlight its new campaign to pass citizen-only voting constitutionalamendments in November. Restoration News was present to cover the event.The group, joined by state senators from North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, andWisconsin announced the campaign which focuses on Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, NorthCarolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin—all states that have constitutionalamendments on the ballot in November. Alongside the senators, Georgia Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger took the stand to highlight the importance of citizen-only voting and showthat Georgia isleading the way in election integrity.The group hopes that numerous other states will continue to hop on board the bipartisan issueof ensuring that only Americans citizens can vote in elections—as it is important that votersunderstand what they are voting for and are “part of the family,” said ACV president AviMcCulluh, herself originally born in Brazil.“I advocate for citizen-only voting because citizenship truly transformed my understanding ofthis incredible country that we live in,” McCullah said. “It's so important, it's so vital for people tounderstand what it is they're fighting for, what it is they believe, what this country was foundedon, in order for them to be informed citizens that can make these wise decisions,” she added.A Growing Threat to Our RepublicNumerous illegal aliens continue to vote in American elections every year illegally, but the AVCcampaign is focusing on states that allow illegal aliens to vote legally based on language intheir state constitutions. In many cases, illegal aliens are granted the right to vote based onvague language stating “every citizen” instead of “only citizens” can vote.With the constitutional amendments on these 8 states’ ballots, “Every citizen of the UnitedStates who is age 18 and older is eligible to vote” will be changed to “Only a citizen of theUnited States who is age 18 and older is eligible to vote.”The coalition is working to implement “an ounce of prevention so that we don't have a pound ofcure to worry about later, said Oklahoma Sen. Shane Jett (R).

Page 41

“We're really dealing much more with and exclusively with non-citizens voting legally, and I thinkthat's a decision that the public really has to weigh in on and say, do we want that to behappening? And of course, if the voters decide, as they have every time, that we want onlycitizens, then there is an enforcement part of that there you do have to follow to make surepeople follow rules,” said ACV Chairman Paul Jacob. “But we're really at the point of settingthose rules clearly.”Currently, California, Maryland, Illinois, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. allow non-citizens tovote legally, according to ACV. 12 states, including Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, andAlabama, have citizen only voting protections—and the group is hopeful that the 8 target stateswill join their ranks in November.The remaining 26 states do not have ballot referendums in November, but the group isoptimistic that they will eventually make the move, as 75 percent of Americans support citizenonly voting, according to a poll conducted by ACV.“In a battleground state like Wisconsin, where the last two presidential elections have beendecided by only 20,000 votes, it’s great to see that our constitutional amendment for onlycitizens voting is polling at over 75 percent support,” said Wisconsin Sen. Julian Bradley. “Ourcitizens' voting rights deserve to be protected.”Bronson Winslow is an Investigative Researcher for Restoration News.

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

by Logan Finney, Idaho ReportsThe Idaho Senate approved an amendment to the state constitution onMonday, sending a measure to voters this fall asking whether noncitizensshould be allowed to vote.Sen. Doug Okuniewicz, R-Hayden, sponsored the resolution. He referencedcities in other parts of the country which have allowed noncitizens to vote inlocal elections. He also reada passage from an academic review whichsuggested Idaho’s existing legal structure that disqualiﬁes felons from voting“might allow municipalities to extend voting rights to other groups.”The amendment will appear before Idaho voters on the November 2024 ballot.It is the only constitutional amendment that state lawmakers have approvedso far this election cycle.If approved by voters,House Joint Resolution 5 would add the followingsentenceto the state constitution: “No person who is not a citizen of theUnited States shall be a qualiﬁed elector in any election held within the stateof Idaho.”The Senate passed HJR 5 in a 28-6 party line vote. The House passed theresolution on March 11 with Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise, joining theRepublicans in support.Current Idaho lawdeﬁnes a qualiﬁed elector as a U.S. citizen age 18 or olderwho has resided in the state and county for at least 30 days and registered tovote as required by law.Logan Finney | Associate ProducerLogan Finney is a North Idaho native with a passion for media production and boringgovernment meetings. He grew up skiing, hunting and hiking in the mountains of BonnerCounty and has maintained a lifelong interest in the state’s geography, history and politics.Logan joined the Idaho Reports team in 2020 as a legislative session intern and stayed tocover the COVID-19 pandemic. He was hired as an associate producer in 2021 and theyhaven’t been able to get rid of him since.

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

IDAHO LEGISLATURE - HJR00503/11Read Third Time in Full – ADOPTED - 63-6-1AYESAlfieri, Allgood, Andrus, Barbieri, Berch, Blanksma, Boyle, Bundy, Burns, Cannon,Cheatum, Clow, Cornilles, Crane(12), Crane(13), Dixon(1), Dixon(24), Durrant,Ehardt, Ehlers, Erickson, Furniss, Galaviz, Gallagher, Gannon, Garner, Handy,Hawkins, Healey, Hill(McKnight), Holtzclaw, Horman, Kingsley, Lambert, Lanting,Manwaring, McCann, Mendive, Mickelsen, Mitchell, Monks, Nelsen, Palmer, Petzke,Pickett, Price, Raybould, Raymond, Redman, Roberts, Sauter, Scott, Shepherd,Skaug, Tanner, Vander Woude, Weber, Wheeler, Wisniewski, Wroten, Yamamoto,Young, Mr. SpeakerNAYSAchilles, Chew(Beazer), Green, Mathias, Necochea, RubelAbsentMillerFloor Sponsor - AndrusTitle apvd - to Senate03/25Read third time in full – ADOPTED - 28-6-1AYESAdams, Anthon, Bernt, Bjerke, Burtenshaw, Carlson, Cook, Den Hartog, Foreman,Grow, Guthrie, Harris, Hart, Hartgen, Herndon, Lakey, Lee, Lenney, Lent, Nichols,Okuniewicz, Ricks, Schroeder, Toews, Trakel, VanOrden, Winder, ZuiderveldNAYSJust, Rabe, Semmelroth, Taylor, Ward-Engelking, WintrowAbsent and excusedShea(Ruchti)Floor Sponsor - OkuniewiczTitle apvd - to House

Page 49

Page 50

Iowa voters to decide amendment requiring citizenship to vote, allowing 17-year-olds to cast ballots Constitutional amendments slated for vote in November 2024 election. By Jackie Mitchell | Ballotpedia via The Center Square April 7, 2023 In November 2024, Iowa voters will decide on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit non-citizens from casting ballots in state and local races and also permit 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the general election to vote in primary elections. To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority vote is required in both the Iowa State Senate and the Iowa House of Representatives during two successive legislative sessions with an election for state legislators in between. The constitutional amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 9 on Feb. 10, 2021. It was passed unanimously in both chambers during the 2021-2022 legislative session. The measure was also passed unanimously by the state legislature during the 2023-2024 legislative session and was certified for the ballot on April 5, 2023. All state constitutions mention U.S. citizenship when discussing who can vote in that state’s elections. In 43 states, constitutional language discussing citizenship says who can vote (e.g. “every citizen” or “all citizens”), but does not state that noncitizens cannot vote. In seven states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio), constitutions provide that citizens, but not noncitizens, have the right to vote. (more)

Page 51

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, such as U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and presidential elections. Federal law did not address state or local elections. At least 15 municipalities across the country allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of February 2023. It was passed unanimously in both chambers during the 2021-2022 legislative session. The measure was also passed unanimously by the state legislature during the 2023-2024 legislative session and was certified for the ballot on April 5, 2023. As of 2023, in 17 states and Washington, D.C., 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the next general election are permitted to vote in that year’s primaries and caucuses. As of April 2023, the Iowa secretary of state’s website listed the following requirements to register and vote in Iowa:  Must be a U.S. citizen.  Must be an Iowa resident.  Must be at least 17 years old (18 years old by election day, or for primary elections be 18 by the general or city election to vote). In Iowa, a total of 17 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Ten were approved, and 7 were defeated. https://www.thecentersquare.com/iowa/article_93e29656-8065-54bb-8ff3-d21d9110c070.html

Page 52

Page 53

Senate Joint Resolution 9 - EnrolledSenate Joint Resolution9A JOINT RESOLUTIONPROPOSINGAN AMENDMENTTO THE CONSTITUTIONOF THE STATE OF IOWARELATING TO THE QUALIFICATIONSOF ELECTORS.BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYOF THE STATE OF IOWA:Section 1. The followingamendment to the Constitutionofthe State of Iowa is proposed:Section 1 of Article II of the Constitutionof the State ofIowa, as amended by the amendment of 1970, is repealed and thefollowingadopted in lieu thereof:Section 1. Electors. Only a citizen of the United Statesof the age of eighteen years, who shall have been a residentofthis state for such period of time as shall be provided by lawand of the county in which the citizen claims the citizen’svotefor such period of time as shall be provided by law, shall beentitledto vote at all electionswhich are authorizedby law.However,for purposes of a primary election,a United Statescitizen must be at least eighteen years of age as of the nextgeneral electionfollowing the primary election. The requiredperiods of residenceshall not exceed six months in this stateand sixty days in the county.Sec. 2. SUBMISSIONTO ELECTORATE. The foregoing proposedamendment,having been adopted and agreed to by the 89th General9/24/24, 10:29 AMIowa-2023-SJR9-Enrolledhttps://legiscan.com/IA/text/SJR9/id/2773051/Iowa-2023-SJR9-Enrolled.html1/2

Page 54

Senate Joint Resolution9, p. 2Assembly,Second Session, thereafterduly published,and nowadopted and agreed to by the 90th General Assemblyin this jointresolution,shall be submitted to the people of the state ofIowa at the general election in November of the year 2024 in themanner requiredby the Constitutionof the State of Iowa and thelaws of the state of Iowa.______________________________AMY SINCLAIRPresidentof the Senate______________________________PAT GRASSLEYSpeaker of the HouseI hereby certify that this joint resolutionoriginatedinthe Senate and is known as Senate Joint Resolution9, NinetiethGeneral Assembly.______________________________W. CHARLES SMITHSONSecretaryof the Senate9/24/24, 10:29 AMIowa-2023-SJR9-Enrolledhttps://legiscan.com/IA/text/SJR9/id/2773051/Iowa-2023-SJR9-Enrolled.html2/2

Page 55

58th Day TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023 521 election. The required periods of residence shall not exceed six months in this state and sixty days in the county. Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO ELECTORATE. The foregoing proposed amendment, having been adopted and agreed to by the 89th General Assembly, Second Session, thereafter duly published, and now adopted and agreed to by the 90th General Assembly in this joint resolution, shall be submitted to the people of the state of Iowa at the general election in November of the year 2024 in the manner required by the Constitution of the State of Iowa and the laws of the state of Iowa. On the question “Shall the resolution be adopted?” (S.J.R. 9), the vote was: Yeas, 49: Alons Bennett Bisignano BoultonBousselot Brown Celsi CostelloCournoyer Dawson De Witt DickeyDonahue Dotzler Driscoll EdlerEvans Giddens Green GruenhagenGuth Jochum Klimesh KnoxKoelker Kraayenbrink Lofgren McClintockPetersen Quirmbach Reichman RowleyRozenboom Salmon Schultz ShipleySinclair Sweeney Taylor, J. Taylor, T.Trone Garriott Wahls Webster WeinerWestrich Whitver Winckler ZaunZumbach Nays, none. Absent, 1: Garrett The resolution, having received a constitutional majority, was declared to have been adopted by the Senate and the title was agreed to. IMMEDIATELY MESSAGED Senator Whitver asked and received unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolution 9 be immediately messaged to the House.

Page 56

86th Day Abdul-Samad Bagniewski Bossman Cahill Cooling Dieken Forbes Gerhold Grassley, Spkr. Hayes Ingels Jeneary Kniff McCulla Latham Madison Meyer, B. Nielsen Rinker Sherman Srinivas Stone Turek Wilburn Wood Wills, The yeas were, 97: Amos Jr. Bergan Bradley Carlson Croken Dunwell Fry Gjerde Gustafson Henderson Isenhart Johnson Konfrst Levin Matson Mohr Nordman Scheetz Shipley Staed Thompson, M. Vondran Wilson Wulf Presiding The nays were, none.Absent or not voting, 3: Best Kaufmann Sieck TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023 AndrewsBloomingdaleBrown-PowersCisnerosDetermannEhlertGainesGoldingGustoffHoltJacobyJonesKressigLohseMeggersMommsenOlsonScholtenSiegristSteckmanThompson, P. BaethBodenBuckCollinsDeyoeFisherGehlbachGraberHarrisHoraJamesJudgeKurthLundgrenMeyer, A.MooreOsmundsonSextonSorensenStoltenbergThomsonWessel-Kroeschell WheelerWilzYoung WindschitlZabner769 The joint resolution having received a constitutional majority was declared to have been adopted and agreed to by the House. Golding of Linn moved that the joint resolution be read a last time nowand placed upon its adoption and the joint resolution was read a last time. On the question “Shall the joint resolution be adopted and agreed to?” (S.J.R. 9)

Page 57

Page 58

Ky. House, Senate pass constitutional amendments to ban noncitizen voting Kentucky Public Radio | By Sylvia Goodman Published February 13, 2024 Noncitizens cannot vote in any local or state elections in Kentucky. An amendment passed the Senate Monday that would further codify the ban into the Kentucky Constitution. The Kentucky Constitution says that “every citizen of the United States” with Kentucky residency is eligible to vote in the state’s elections. Some lawmakers say that the wording should be more restrictive, to keep municipalities from allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. Republican Sen. Jason Howell from Murray, the bill’s lead sponsor, said he hopes his legislation offers “clarity” on voter eligibility. His bill to ban noncitizens from voting passed the Senate Monday. “This is about protecting citizens and the thousands of people who’ve lawfully navigated the immigration process. One of the rewards of doing so is earning the right to vote,” Howell said. An amendment identical to Howell’s already passed in the House of Representatives — House Bill 341, sponsored by Republican Rep. Michael Meredith, from Oakland. Because the bills mirror each other but are technically unconnected, one of the two must gain final approval from the other chamber before it can appear on the ballot in November. “It’s odd we don’t already have this spelled out in our constitution. While this is specifically prohibited at the federal level, it isn’t addressed here in Kentucky,” Howell said in a statement. While the U.S. Constitution clearly prohibits any noncitizen from voting, state constitutions have been slightly more lenient. Washington D.C., and a few municipalities in California, Maryland and Vermont allow noncitizens to vote in certain local elections. But noncitizens can’t vote in Kentucky. Democratic Sen. David Yates of Louisville said he believes the amendment is redundant, and voted against the bill. “I too would not want someone who's not a citizen of the United States to be voting in our elections. But that's not happening. And I don't think there's any fear of it happening since it's already in Kentucky's constitution,” Yates said.

Page 59

Several constitutional amendments have already been proposed this session. That’s not unusual, but several of the proposed amendments have been named by Republican party leadership as priorities. “It’s odd we don’t already have this spelled out in our constitution. While this is specifically prohibited at the federal level, it isn’t addressed here in Kentucky.” — Republican Sen. Jason Howell from Murray They include amendments to allow state funding for private schools, expand legislative powers, change the election year of governors, and more. However, only four amendments can be put before the voters this year. Democratic Sen. Karen Berg from Louisville said that was part of her calculation in voting “yes” on the noncitizen voting amendment. “We get four spaces for constitutional amendments, and as far as I'm concerned, this is probably the least offensive constitutional amendment we could put on the ballot, because it would change nothing in the state of Kentucky,” Berg said. “So I'm a yes. Let's put it on the ballot.” Berg said she is concerned that the amendment would serve as a dog-whistle, implying that noncitizens are currently allowed to vote in Kentucky, which is not the case. LPM's state government and politics reporting is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. https://www.lpm.org/news/2024-02-13/ky-house-senate-pass-constitutional-amendments-to-ban-noncitizen-voting

Page 60

Page 61

CHAPTER 7 Legislative Research Commission PDF Version 1 CHAPTER 7 ( SB 143 ) AN ACT proposing to amend Sections 145 and 155 of the Constitution of Kentucky relating to persons entitled to vote. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section 1. Are you in favor of amending Sections 145 and 155 of the Constitution of Kentucky to prohibit persons who are not citizens of the United States from being allowed to vote in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as stated below? Section 2. It is proposed that Section 145 of the Constitution of Kentucky be amended to read as follows: Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years who has resided in the state one year, and in the county six months, and the precinct in which he or she offers to vote sixty days next preceding the election, shall be a voter in said precinct and not elsewhere. No person who is not a citizen of the United States shall be allowed to vote in this state.[ but] The following persons also[are excepted and] shall not have the right to vote:[.] 1. Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the General Assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage, but persons hereby excluded may be restored to their civil rights by executive pardon. 2. Persons who, at the time of the election, are in confinement under the judgment of a court for some penal offense. 3. Idiots and insane persons. Section 3. It is proposed that Section 155 of the Constitution of Kentucky be amended to read as follows: The provisions of Sections 145 to 154, inclusive, shall not apply to the election of school trustees and other common school district elections. Said elections shall be regulated by the General Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. No person who is not a citizen of the United States shall be allowed to vote in said elections. Section 4. This amendment shall be submitted to the voters of the Commonwealth for their ratification or rejection at the time and in the manner provided for under Sections 256 and 257 of the Constitution, KRS 118.415, and Sections 5 and 6 of this Act. Section 5. Notwithstanding any provision of KRS 118.415 to the contrary, the Secretary of State shall cause the entirety of the question in Section 1 of this Act and the entirety of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Kentucky contained in Sections 2 and 3 of this Act to be published at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation published in this state, and shall also cause to be published at the same time and in the same manner the fact that the amendment will be submitted to the voters for their acceptance or rejection at the next regular election at which members of the General Assembly are to be voted for. The publication required by this section and KRS 118.415 shall be made no later than the first Tuesday in August preceding the election at which the amendment is to be voted on. Section 6. Notwithstanding any provision of KRS 118.415 to the contrary, the Secretary of State, not later than the second Monday after the second Tuesday in August preceding the next regular election at which members of the General Assembly are to be chosen in a year in which there is not an election for President and Vice President of the United States, or not later than the Thursday after the first Tuesday in September preceding a regular election in a year in which there is an election for President and Vice President of the United States, shall certify the entirety of the question in Section 1 of this Act and the entirety of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Kentucky contained in Sections 2 and 3 of this Act to the county clerk of each county, and the county clerk shall have the entirety of the question and the amendment, as so certified, indicated on the ballots provided to the voters in paper or electronic form as applicable to the voting machines in use in each county or precinct. Governor's signature not required.

Page 62

Page 63

Commonwealth of KentuckyHouse of Representatives2024 Regular SessionSB 143 RCS# 297AN ACT amend Sections 145, 155 of the Constitution relating to persons entitled to vote.3/15/2024 9:13:36AMFinal PassageYEAS: 72NAYS: 12ABSTAINED: 0NOT VOTING: 14YEAS : 72Baker Dossett Huff T Miles SmithBanta Dotson Imes Moser Stevenson CBauman Duvall Jackson Neighbors Tackett LafertyBentley Elliott Johnson Nemes TateBowling Fister King Osborne ThomasBranscum Flannery Koch Petrie TimoneyBratcher S. Fleming Lewis D Pollock TiptonBray Frazier Gordon Lewis S Proctor TruettCallaway Freeland Lockett Rabourn UpchurchCalloway Fugate Maddox Raymer WesleyClines Gooch Massaroni Riley WhiteDecker Hale McCool Roarx WilliamsDietz Hart Meade Rudy WilsonDixon Heath Meredith Sharp WittenDoan HodgsonNAYS : 12Aull Camuel Herron Palumbo RobertsBojanowski Graham Kulkarni Raymond StalkerBurke GrossbergABSTAINED : 0NOT VOTING : 14Blanton Brown Heavrin McPherson Stevenson PBratcher K. Chester-Burton Justice Pratt WillnerBridges Gentry Lawrence Rawlings

Page 64

Page 65

The Missouri state Senate has approved a constitutional amendment to ban non-U.S. citizens from voting. Senate Joint Resolution 78 also would ban ranked-choice voting in the state except for St. Louis, which already uses the method. If the resolution is passed by the Missouri House, the amendment will be on the November general election ballot. If it does end up on the ballot, Missouri will be the seventh state to have such an amendment put before voters this fall. The amendment would change one word in the state constitution. Instead of saying “All citizens of the United States” can vote, it would say “Only citizens of the United States.” Paul Jacob is president of the Americans for Citizens Voting PAC. ACV is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping citizens pass such amendments. He said the public seems to be very strongly against the idea of allowing non-citizens vote in elections.

Page 66

“We have a system in which an American citizen has power with their vote,” Jacob told The St. Louis Record. “You get to vote if you’re a citizen. If you open it up so others can vote, you lessen what citizenship means.” The amendment would make it so only American citizens over the age of 18 who reside in Missouri are allowed to vote. Jacob said his organization has no official stance on the ranked-choice voting aspect of the amendment. Earlier this month, South Carolina lawmakers passed a bill putting the issue on this fall’s general election ballot. And in March, Idaho lawmakers passed a similar measure to join Iowa, Kentucky and Wisconsin whose voters will have similar measures on the ballot this November. Earlier this month, South Carolina lawmakers passed a bill putting the issue on this fall’s general election ballot. And in March, Idaho lawmakers passed a similar measure to join Iowa, Kentucky and Wisconsin whose voters will have similar measures on the ballot this November. In recent years, city councils in New York, Washington and three cities in Vermont have voted to legalize foreign citizen voting. They join cities in California, Illinois and Maryland that, because of a loophole in their state constitutions, also allow foreign citizens to vote. “Most state constitutions do not specifically prohibit foreign citizen voting,” ACV President Avi McCullah recently said. “Many people, even legislators, are unaware of this fact.” If approved by voters, North Carolina – as well as South Carolina, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky and Wisconsin – will join 11 states whose constitutions already reserve the right to vote for only citizens of the United States. In recent years, the following states have passed these amendments: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio and North Dakota. In addition to Missouri, similar efforts are under way in Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia. And a delegate in the Virginia General Assembly introduced legislation earlier this year that would require Virginia residents to prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote by providing a birth certificate, passport or naturalization documents. In March, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and state Senate President Craig Blair said they wanted to see the issue on the agenda for a planned special session after the legislation stalled during the regular session. But when the special session call was released last week, the matter was not included on the agenda. And federal Republican lawmakers are working on a bill called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. . https://stlrecord.com/stories/659254723-missouri-senate-passes-amendment-banning-non-citizen-voting-in-state-elections

Page 67

Page 68

EXPLANATION-Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law. SECOND REGULAR SESSION [TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED] SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 78 102ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2024 3502S.03T JOINT RESOLUTION Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment repealing sections 2 and 3 of article VIII of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting three new sections in lieu thereof relating to elections. Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein: That at the next general election to be held in the 1 state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday 2 in November, 2024, or at a special election to be called by 3 the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to 4 the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or 5 rejection, the following amendment to article VIII of the 6 Constitution of the state of Missouri:7 Section A. Sections 2 and 3, article VIII, Constitution 1 of Missouri, are repealed and three new sections adopted in 2 lieu thereof, to be known as sections 2, 3, and 24, to read as 3 follows:4 Section 2. [All] Only citizens of the United States, 1 including occupants of soldiers' and sailors' homes, over 2 the age of eighteen who are residents of this state and of 3 the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are 4 entitled to vote at all elections by the people, if the 5 election is one for which registration is required if they 6 are registered within the time prescribed by law, or if the 7 election is one for which registration is not required, if 8

Page 69

SS SJR 78 2 they have been residents of the political subdivision in 9 which they offer to vote for thirty days next preceding the 10 election for which they offer to vote: Provided however, no 11 person who has a guardian of his or her estate or person by 12 reason of mental incapacity, appointed by a court of 13 competent jurisdiction and no person who is involuntarily 14 confined in a mental institution pursuant to an adjudication 15 of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be entitled to 16 vote, and persons convicted of felony, or crime connected 17 with the exercise of the right of suffrage may be excluded 18 by law from voting. 19 Section 3. 1. All elections by the people shall be by 1 paper ballot or by any mechanical method prescribed by law. 2 2. Voters shall have only a single vote for each issue 3 on which such voter is eligible to vote. Voters shall have 4 the same number of votes for an office as the number of open 5 seats to be elected to such office at that election. Under 6 no circumstance shall a voter be permitted to cast a ballot 7 in a manner that results in the ranking of candidates for a 8 particular office. Notwithstanding any provision of this 9 subsection to the contrary, this subsection shall not apply 10 to any nonpartisan municipal election held in a city that 11 had an ordinance in effect as of November 5, 2024, that 12 permits voters to cast more than a single vote for each 13 issue or candidate on which such voter is eligible to vote. 14 3. All election officers shall be sworn or affirmed 15 not to disclose how any voter voted; provided, that in cases 16 of contested elections, grand jury investigations and in the 17 trial of all civil or criminal cases in which the violation 18 of any law relating to elections, including nominating 19 elections, is under investigation or at issue, such officers 20

Page 70

SS SJR 78 3 may be required to testify and the ballots cast may be 21 opened, examined, counted, and received as evidence. 22 Section 24. 1. The person receiving the greatest 1 number of votes at a primary election as a party candidate 2 for an office shall be the only candidate for that party for 3 the office at the general election. The name of such 4 candidate shall be placed on the official ballot at the 5 general election unless removed or replaced as provided by 6 law. 7 2. The person receiving the greatest number of votes 8 at the general election shall be declared the winner. 9 3. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to 10 the contrary, this section shall not apply to any 11 nonpartisan municipal election held in a city that had an 12 ordinance in effect as of November 5, 2024, that requires a 13 preliminary election at which more than one candidate 14 advances to a subsequent election. 15 Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, and other 1 applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state 2 allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for 3 the submission of this joint resolution to the voters of 4 this state, the official summary statement of this 5 resolution shall be as follows: 6 "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: 7 ● Make the Constitution consistent with state 8 law by only allowing citizens of the United 9 States to vote; 10 ● Prohibit the ranking of candidates by 11 limiting voters to a single vote per candidate 12 or issue; and 13

Page 71

Page 72

653 The President declared the joint resolution passed. On motion of Senator Brown (26), title tothe joint resolution was agreed to. Senator Brown (26) moved that the vote by which the jointresolution passed be reconsidered. Senator O'Laughlin moved that motion lay on the table,which motion prevailed. SS for SJR 78, introduced by Senator Brown (26), entitled: SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 78 Joint Resolution submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment repealing sections 2 and 3 of article VIII of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting three new sections in lieu thereof relating to elections. Was taken up.On motion of Senator Brown (26), SS for SJR 78 was read the 3rd time and passed by the following vote: Forty-Sixth Day - Tuesday, April 9, 2024 THIRD READING OF SENATE BILLS YEAS—Senators BeanCierpiotHoskinsSchroer BernskoetterColemanHoughThompson Rehder BlackCrawfordKoenigTrent—24 Beck Williams—9 Arthur Roberts May Absent—Senator Washington—1 Absent with leave—Senators—None Vacancies—None McCreery BrattinEigelLuetkemeyer Mosley Brown (16th Dist.)EslingerMoon Razer Brown (26th Dist.)FitzwaterO'Laughlin Rizzo CarterGannonRowden NAYS—Senators

Page 73

Page 74

Page 75

The North Carolina Speaker of the House, Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, has filed legislation to amend the state constitution to allow citizens-only to vote in all elections. This legislation, HB 1074, is co-sponsored by Rep. Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, and House Majority Whip Rep. Karl Gillespie, R-Cherokee. Rep. Mike Clampitt, R-Jackson; Rep. Ben T. Moss, R-Moore; and Rep. Mitchell S. Setzer, R-Catawba, also signed onto the bill. “In order to preserve the democratic principles of our nation, it is imperative that we ensure the integrity of our elections. I am proud to sponsor this bill,” said Gillespie. The legislation mirrors SB 630, which was filed in 2023 and Sen. Brad Overcash, R-Gaston, told the Carolina Journal that he intended to bring the bill back up for consideration this session. “In North Carolina, we value the integrity of our elections and have put safeguards in place to ensure our elections are secure,” said Moore in a press release Thursday. “Recent efforts to allow non-citizens to vote would undermine the public’s confidence in our electoral system and leave

Page 76

the door open for chaos and election fraud to take hold. Preventing non-citizens from voting in our elections also helps maintain national sovereignty, as it prevents foreign influence from affecting the outcomes of American elections, and this amendment to our constitution would further strengthen election integrity in North Carolina.” The North Carolina Constitution currently says that “Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, who is 18 years of age.” The new language, as outlined in HB 1074, would read: “Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.” It is a subtle difference, but a potentially important one, says Dr. Andy Jackson, director of the Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation. “There is some disagreement about whether the current language in the state Constitution prevents noncitizens from voting or only affirms that otherwise qualified citizens cannot be denied the right to vote.” Jackson told the Carolina Journal. “The language in the proposed amendment would make it clear that only American citizens are permitted to vote in any elections in North Carolina,” Because the primary sponsors of H1074 includes the current House Speaker Tim Moore, who is currently running for Congress, and the presumptive next NC House Speaker, Destin Hall. Jackson says there is a strong likelihood that the amendment will pass the House. “The Senate may be a tougher obstacle since there does not appear to be as much enthusiasm for the amendment in that chamber,” he added. If this legislation is passed in the North Carolina General Assembly, it would be placed on November’s 2024 general election ballot so that voters can decide for themselves. “Tightening our elections laws so that only U.S. citizens are voting in this country ensures that those making decisions about our country’s future have a vested interest in its well-being,” said Hall. “Voting is a fundamental right and privilege reserved for citizens of the United States, and I am proud to support this effort to ensure the integrity of our elections.” A recent poll of likely North Carolina voters by the Remington Research Group showed that 89% believed that only US citizens should have the right to vote, and 87% would support a constitutional amendment clarifying that US citizens are eligible to vote in all North Carolina state and local elections. “Granting noncitizens the right to vote undermines the right of American citizens to exercise their authority to influence the government by diminishing the power of their votes,” wrote Jackson in a recent report. https://www.carolinajournal.com/speaker-moore-introduces-constitutional-amendment-for-citizen-only-voting/

Page 77

Page 78

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2023 H D HOUSE BILL DRH40617-LUy-168 Short Title: Constitutional Amendment/Citizens-Only Voting. (Public) Sponsors: Representative D. Hall. Referred to: *DRH40617-LUy-168* A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1 AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE FOR 2 CITIZENS-ONLY VOTING. 3 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 4 SECTION 1. Section 1 of Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution reads as 5 rewritten: 6 "Section 1. Who may vote. 7 Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, Only a 8 citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age, age and possessing the qualifications set out 9 in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein 10 otherwise provided." 11 SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to 12 the qualified voters of the State at the statewide general election to be held on November 5, 2024, 13 which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. Ballots, 14 voting systems, or both may be used in accordance with Chapter 163 of the General Statutes. The 15 question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be: 16 "[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST 17 Constitutional amendment to provide that only a citizen of the United States who is 18 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at 19 any election in this State." 20 SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment 21 set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the 22 Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the 23 permanent records of that office. If a majority of votes cast on the question are against the 24 amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the amendment shall have no effect. 25 SECTION 4. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act is effective upon 26 certification. 27 SECTION 5. Except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes 28 law. 29 H.B. 1074May 23, 2024HOUSE PRINCIPAL CLERK

Page 79

HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #7692023-2024 SessionHB 1074: Constitutional Amendment/Citizens-Only Voting.Vote: Third ReadingRoll Call #769Outcome: PASSSponsor: D. HALLTime: 6/27/2024 11:28 a.m.Total votes: 111Ayes: 99Noes: 12Not Voting: 0Excused Absence: 9Excused Vote: 0Ayes (Democrat)Ager; Alston; Ball; G. Brown; T. Brown; Buansi; Butler; Clemmons; Cunningham; Dahle; Everitt; Harris; Hawkins; F. Jackson; Jeffers; John; A.Jones; Liu; Lofton; Longest; Majeed; Pierce; Prather; Quick; Reives; Roberson; Rudow; Charles Smith; Staton-Williams; von Haefen;Willingham; WrayAyes (Republican)Adams; Arp; K. Baker; Balkcom; Bell; Biggs; Blackwell; Bradford; Branson; Brisson; Brody; Cairns; Chesser; Clampitt; Cleveland; Cotham;Crutch eld; Davis; Dixon; Elmore; Gillespie; Goodwin; D. Hall; K. Hall; Hastings; Humphrey; Iler; N. Jackson; Johnson; B. Jones; Kidwell;Lambeth; Loftis; Lowery; McNeely; Miller; Mills; Moore (Speaker); Moss; Paré; Penny; Pickett; Pike; Pless; Potts; Pyrtle; Reeder; Riddell;Ross; Saine; Sasser; Sauls; Setzer; Shepard; Carson Smith; Sossamon; Stevens; Strickland; Torbett; Tyson; Ward; Watford; Wheatley; White;Willis; Winslow; ZengerNoes (Democrat)Autry; A. Baker; Belk; Budd; Carney; Cervania; Crawford; Gill; Harrison; Lucas; Morey; PriceNoes (Republican)NoneExcused Absence (Democrat)Alexander; Brockman; K. Brown; LoganExcused Absence (Republican)Faircloth; Fontenot; Greene; Howard; Warren

Page 80

SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #6362023-2024 SessionHB 1074: Constitutional Amendment/Citizens-Only Voting.Vote: Third ReadingRoll Call #636Outcome: PASSSponsor: D. HallTime: 6/27/2024 2:03 p.m.Total votes: 44Ayes: 40Noes: 4Not Voting: 0Excused Absence: 6Excused Vote: 0Ayes (Democrat)Adcock; Blue; Bode; Chaudhuri; Grafstein; Lowe; May eld; Smith; Waddell; WoodardAyes (Republican)Alexander; Barnes; Berger (Chair); Britt; Burgin; Corbin; Craven; Daniel; Ford; Galey; Hanig; Hise; Jackson; Jarvis; Johnson; Krawiec; Lazzara;Lee; McInnis; Mof tt; B. Newton; P. Newton; Overcash; Perry; Proctor; Rabon; Sanderson; Sawrey; Sawyer; SettleNoes (Democrat)Applewhite; Meyer; Murdock; RobinsonNoes (Republican)NoneExcused Absence (Democrat)Batch; Garrett; Hunt; Marcus; Mohammed; SalvadorExcused Absence (Republican)None

Page 81

Page 82

Page 83

The current wording on the Oklahoma state constitution is as follows:"Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe, all citizens of the United States, over theage of eighteen (18) years, who are bona fide residents of this state, are qualified electors of this state."The joint resolution has garnered support from a wide array of lawmakers in both the OklahomaSenate and House.Immigration and border security have emerged as top concerns for voters.Missouri will vote on a similar question this November, as debates over immigration, citizenship,and voting rights intensify nationwide. Recently, two undocumented immigrants from Honduraswere arrested in Missouri in connection with a murder in Jasper County and the violent assaultof multiple women in the Kansas City area.

Page 84

Page 85

Page 86

Page 87

Page 88

OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Second Regular Session 59th Oklahoma Legislature SJR23McCall Constitutional amendment; clarifying citizenshiprequirement for qualified electors. ADVANCEFROM GENERAL ORDER PASSED YEAS:NAYS:EXC :C/P : 7111190 RCS# 194805/30/202405:56 PM1948 YEAS: 71 Hays Archer BakerBanning BashoreBoles BurnsCaldwell (C)Caldwell (T)Cantrell ConleyCrosswhite HaderCulver DavisDempsey DobrinskiDuel Echols FetgatterFord GannGeorgeGregoHardinHarrisHasenbeckHilbertHillHumphreyJohns KaneKannadyKendrixKerbsLawsonLepak Lowe (D)MayMaynardMcBrideMcEntireMillerMooreNewtonODonnellOlsenOsburnPaeRobertsRoe SimsSmithSneedStaires StarkSteagallSterlingStinsonStrom TalleyTedfordVancurenWallace West(J) West (K)West (R)West (T)WilliamsWolfleyWorthen Mr.Speaker NAYS: 11 BennettBlancettDeck FugateGoodwinHefner MunsonPittmanRanson SchreiberWaldron EXCUSED: 19 Alonso-SandovalBoatmanCornwellDollensLowe (J) LuttrellMangerMartiMcDugleMenz NicholsPatzkowskyPfeifferProvenzanoRandleman RosecrantsSwopeTownleyTurner CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE: 0

Page 89

Page 90

SC Lawmakers Put Citizen-Only Voting Amendment On November Ballot May 3, 2024 South Carolina voters will decide in November on a constitutional amendment that would allow only American citizens to vote in all state elections. The Citizens Only Voting Amendment passed the South Carolina House of Representatives on a 105-0 vote May 2. Senate Joint Resolution 1126 passed the Senate last month a 40-3 vote. “Today South Carolina took an important step forward in defending the value of citizenship,” Senator Josh Kimbrell, the bill’s author, said. “We will never allow a non-citizen to vote in any election in our state, but we will make it easy for legal, law-abiding citizens of the United States and of our state to vote in all our elections. Citizenship matters, and this vote proves that point.” https://www.offthepress.com/sc-lawmakers-put-citizen-only-voting-amendment-on-november-ballot/

Page 91

Citizen-only voting amendment will be on the South Carolina 2024 ballot Americans for Citizen Voting came out in support of the amendment By Charlotte Hazard May 4, 2024 Voters in South Carolina will have the opportunity to add an amendment to the state constitution that would allow only American citizens to vote in state elections. The amendment is titled "The Citizens Only Voting Amendment" and it was passed by the South Carolina House of Representatives 105-0 earlier this week. Last month, the Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 40-3. South Carolina voters will be able to vote on the amendment in November of this year. “Today South Carolina took an important step forward in defending the value of citizenship,” Senator Josh Kimbrell said, according to Legal Newsline. “We will never allow a non-citizen to vote in any election in our state, but we will make it easy for legal, law-abiding citizens of the United States and of our state to vote in all our elections. Citizenship matters, and this vote proves that point.” He added that this isn't a partisan issue and is something that every South Carolinian should agree on. While federal law makes it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, cities across the country, including New York, Washington and several cities in Vermont, have voted to legalize voting for foreign citizens. Cities in California, Illinois and Maryland allow foreign citizens to vote based on loopholes in their constitutions, according to Legal Newsline. A group called Americans for Citizen Voting, which tracks this issue across the country, came out in support of the amendment. “This is a tremendous victory for the citizens of South Carolina,” ACV President Avi McCullah stated. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/citizen-only-voting-amendment-will-be-south-carolina-2024-ballot

Page 92

Must Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State, relating to voter qualifications, be amended so as to provide that only a citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law? Yes, In Favor of the Question No, Opposed to the QuestionLearn more about Citizen-Only Voting at:ONLYCITIZENS.VOTEVOTE FOR70%Survey conducted March 16 through March 18, 2024. 827 likely 2024 General Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match expected turnout demographics for the 2024 General Election. Margin of Error is ±3.5% with a 95% level of condence. Totals do not always equal 100% due to rounding.SOUTH CAROLINATHE REFERENDUMON THE BACKOF YOURBALLOTOF SOUTHCAROLINAVOTERSSUPPORTCITIZEN-ONLYVOTINGSTATEWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTSSUPPORT 70%OPPOSE 13%UNDECIDED 17%

Page 93

South Carolina General Assembly 125th Session, 2023-2024 S. 1126 Introduced by Senators Kimbrell, Peeler, Rice, M. Johnson, Adams, Climer, Garrett, Cash, Young, Alexander, Reichenbach, Shealy, Grooms, Cromer, Turner, Loftis, Fanning, Gustafson, Goldfinch, Massey, Campsen, Bennett, Martin, Corbin and Verdin ________ A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4, ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO VOTER QUALIFICATIONS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT ONLY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS STATE OF THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN AND UPWARDS WHO IS PROPERLY REGISTERED IS ENTITLED TO VOTE AS PROVIDED BY LAW. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: SECTION 1. It is proposed that Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State be amended to read: Section 4. Every Only a citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law. SECTION 2. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots must be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written on the ballot: "Must Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of this State, relating to voter qualifications, be amended so as to provide that only a citizen of the United States and of this State of the age of eighteen and upwards who is properly registered is entitled to vote as provided by law? Yes o No o Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes', and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No'." https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/1126_20240423.htm

Page 94

Page 95

Page 96

Page 97

Page 98

Wisconsin Senate OKs Constitutional Amendment Saying Only Citizens Can Vote In Elections January 25, 2022 MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Senate approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday that says only citizens can vote in elections. The Republican-authored amendment must also pass the Assembly this year and both houses of the Legislature next session before it would go to voters to decide. The governor has no power to veto constitutional amendments. The Wisconsin Constitution guarantees that every U.S. citizen age 18 and over is a qualified elector. But it does not specifically say that only U.S. citizens are qualified to vote in state or local elections. Republican backers of the measure say that ambiguity needs to be fixed through a constitutional amendment. The Republican-controlled Senate approved it on a party line 21-12 vote with no debate. Federal law already requires U.S. citizenship to vote in national elections. No state constitutions explicitly allow noncitizens to vote in state or local elections. However, there has been a recent push for states to pass constitutional amendments to specifically make clear that voters in state and local elections must be citizens. Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke said in a statement supporting the measure he introduced that there is a "concerted effort" across the country to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Cities across the U.S. have considered measures in varying degrees to allow noncitizens such as legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, or immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission and student visa holders to vote in local elections for school boards or town councils. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/wisconsin-senate-oks-constitutional-amendment-saying-only-citizens-can-vote-in-elections/

Page 99

Page 100

LRB-4452/1RAC:wlj&amn2023 - 2024 LEGISLATURE2023 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 71September 29, 2023 - Introduced by Senators BRADLEY, NASS, BALLWEG,FELZKOWSKI, JACQUE, JAGLER, MARKLEIN, QUINN, STAFSHOLT, STROEBEL, TESTIN,TOMCZYK, WANGGAARD and CABRAL-GUEVARA, cosponsored by RepresentativesAUGUST, GUSTAFSON, ALLEN, ARMSTRONG, BEHNKE, BINSFELD, BODDEN, BORN,BRANDTJEN, BROOKS, CALLAHAN, DALLMAN, DITTRICH, DUCHOW, EDMING,GOEBEN, GREEN, GUNDRUM, HURD, S. JOHNSON, MAGNAFICI, MAXEY, MELOTIK,MICHALSKI, MOSES, MURPHY, MURSAU, NEDWESKI, O'CONNOR, PENTERMAN,PETERSEN, PLUMER, RETTINGER, ROZAR, SCHMIDT, SCHRAA, SCHUTT, SNYDER,SUMMERFIELD, SWEARINGEN and WITTKE. Referred to Committee on SharedRevenue, Elections and Consumer Protection.***AUTHORS SUBJECT TO CHANGE***To renumber and amend section 1 of article III; and to create section 1 (1) of articleIII of the constitution; relating to: eligibility to vote in Wisconsin (secondconsideration).Analysis by the Legislative Reference BureauEXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration bythe 2023 legislature for submittal to the voters in November 2024, was firstconsidered by the 2021 legislature in 2021 Senate Joint Resolution 32, which became2021 Enrolled Joint Resolution 13.Currently, the constitution provides that every United States citizen age 18 orolder who is a resident of an election district in Wisconsin is a qualified elector of thatdistrict. A qualified elector is an individual who is eligible to vote in Wisconsin,subject to requirements established by law, such as voter registration.This constitutional amendment specifies that only a United States citizen age18 or older is a qualified elector and only such a qualified elector may vote in anelection for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.PROCEDURE FOR SECOND CONSIDERATION When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature on secondconsideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding legislature causesthe proposed constitutional amendment to revert to first consideration status so thatsecond consideration approval would have to be given by the next legislature before123

Page 101

- 2 -LRB-4452/1RAC:wlj&amn2023 - 2024 Legislaturethe proposal may be submitted to the people for ratification [see joint rule 57 (2)].If the legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment on secondconsideration, it must also set the date for submitting the proposed constitutionalamendment to the people for ratification and must determine the question orquestions to appear on the ballot.Whereas, the 2021 legislature in regular session considered a proposedamendment to the constitution in 2021 Senate Joint Resolution 32, which became2021 Enrolled Joint Resolution 13, and agreed to it by a majority of the memberselected to each of the two houses, which proposed amendment reads as follows:SECTION 1. Section 1 of article III of the constitution is renumberedsection 1 (2) of article III and amended to read:[Article III] Section 1 (2) Every Only a United States citizen age 18or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualifiedelector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, orlocal office or at a statewide or local referendum.SECTION 2. Section 1 (1) of article III of the constitution is createdto read:[Article III] Section 1 (1) In this section:(a) “Local office" means any elective office other than a state ornational office.(b) “National office" means the offices of president and vice presidentof the United States, U.S. senator, and representative in congress.(c) “Referendum" means an election at which an advisory,validating, or ratifying question is submitted to the electorate.(d) “State office" means the offices of governor, lieutenant governor,secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, state superintendentof public instruction, justice of the supreme court, court of appeals judge,circuit court judge, state senator, state representative to the assembly,and district attorney.SECTION 3. Numbering of new provision. If anotherconstitutional amendment ratified by the people creates the number ofany provision created in this joint resolution, the chief of the legislativereference bureau shall determine the sequencing and the numbering ofthe provisions whose numbers conflict.Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2023legislature; and, be it further1234567

Page 102

Page 103

Page 104

WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY2023 Regular SessionSpeaker VosSJR 71BY BRADLEYELIGIBILITY TO VOTE IN WI (SECOND CONSIDERATION)CONCURRENCENO VACANT DISTRICTSAYES - 60  NAYS - 34  NOT VOTING - 5  PAIRED - 0A NIN CHAIR: PETERSENSEQUENCE NO. 117Thursday, November 9, 20231:30 PMAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNVxxNAMEALLENANDERSON, CANDERSON, JANDRACAARMSTRONGAUGUSTBALDEHBAREBEHNKEBILLINGSBINSFELDBODDENBORNBRANDTJENBROOKSCABRERACALLAHANCLANCYCONLEYCONSIDINEDALLMANDITTRICHDONOVANDOYLEDRAKEDUCHOWEDMINGEMERSONGOEBENGOYKEGREENGUNDRUMGUSTAFSONRDDDRRDDRDRRRRRDRDDDRRRDDRRDRDRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNNNNVxxNAMEHAYWOODHONGHURDJACOBSONJOERSJOHNSONKATSMAKITCHENSKRUGKURTZMACCOMADISONMAGNAFICIMAXEYMCGUIREMELOTIKMICHALSKIMOORE OMOKUNDEMOSESMURPHYMURSAUMYERSNEDWESKINEUBAUERNEYLONNOVAKO'CONNOROHNSTADOLDENBURGORTIZ-VELEZPALMERIPENTERMANPETERSENDDRDDRRRRRRDRRDRRDRRRDRDRRRDRDDRRAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNNNVxNAMEPETRYKPLUMERPRONSCHINSKERATCLIFFRETTINGERRIEMERRODRIGUEZROZARSAPIKSCHMIDTSCHRAASCHUTTSHANKLANDSHELTONSINICKISNODGRASSSNYDERSORTWELLSPIROSSTEFFENSTUBBSSUBECKSUMMERFIELDSWEARINGENTITTLTRANELTUSLERVANDERMEERVININGWICHGERSWITTKEZIMMERMANSPEAKERRRRDRDRRRRRRDDDDRRRRDDRRRRRRDRRRR