Constitutional Amendment Would Bar Noncitizens Voting

Summary#

H.J. Res. 107 is a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution; it does not amend an existing statute. Its stated goal is to prohibit noncitizens from voting in any U.S. election for public office or on any ballot initiative or referendum. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and is not law.

  • If two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve it and three-fourths of state legislatures ratify it within seven years after submission, it would add a nationwide constitutional rule.
  • The rule would cover federal, state, and local elections, as well as ballot initiatives and referendums.
  • Congress would have the power to enforce the amendment through legislation, but the text does not require Congress to pass a particular law.
  • The amendment does not set voting procedures, penalties, or a process for checking voters’ citizenship.

What it means for you#

  • Noncitizens: If ratified, you could not vote in any U.S. election for public office or on any ballot initiative or referendum.
  • Citizens: The amendment would not itself make citizens eligible to vote or change other voting qualifications.
  • Election officials and governments: The amendment would establish a constitutional rule for federal, state, and local elections, but does not specify how officials must apply it.
  • General public: The proposal would not take effect unless it passes the required votes in Congress and is ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years.

Money#

No publicly available information on costs is included in the supplied material.

  • The resolution does not appropriate money or set a tax, fee, or fine.
  • Congress could pass enforcement legislation, but the resolution gives no estimate of any resulting costs.

What is unclear#

  • The amendment does not define “citizen” or say how citizenship would be established for voting.
  • It does not specify enforcement procedures, penalties, exceptions, or how it would interact with existing election rules.
  • Current-law materials were not supplied, so existing rules and any current local exceptions cannot be verified here.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the amendment is that it would establish one constitutional rule for federal, state, and local elections nationwide.
  • It expressly covers both votes for public office and votes on ballot initiatives or referendums.
  • Congress could pass laws to enforce the rule.

Case against#

  • The proposed rule is broad: it covers every election for public office and every ballot initiative or referendum, without stating exceptions.
  • Key implementation questions—including citizenship checks, enforcement procedures, and penalties—are left to later laws or decisions.
  • It would place the same constitutional restriction on local and state elections as on federal elections, without explaining how the rule would be applied across those election systems.