Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
North Carolinians heading to the polls this year may be surprised to find a ballot measure proposing an amendment to the state constitution requiring all eligible voters to be U.S. citizens and at least 18 years of age — restrictions already enforced by state and federal law. So why are North Carolina voters being asked to weigh in on the issue?
The referendum is the product of House Bill 1074, a bill passed by the General Assembly in June to change the definition of eligible voters from “every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized” who is 18 to “only U.S. citizens” meeting age and eligibility requirements.
North Carolina voters will weigh whether to explicitly prohibit noncitizen voting in the state’s constitution this election. (Photo: Screengrab from sample ballot)
Wake Forest University professor John Dinan, who specializes in state constitutions, wrote in an email that the bill will have no effect on federal elections, such as presidential and congressional races, where federal law explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting. The only question is whether there exists any ambiguity in North Carolina law, which courts currently understand to prohibit noncitizens from participating in state and local elections.
Proponents say the change is needed to prevent future reinterpretations of the current constitution that could open the door to state and local voting by noncitizens. Opponents say the existing language is unequivocal, and that the proposed change only serves to raise anti-immigrant fervor and deter legal voters from participating in elections.
The bill passed both chambers by a wide margin earlier this year, with a 104-12 vote in the House and a 40-4 vote in the Senate. Now, North Carolina voters will decide the amendment’s fate. Should the referendum pass, the General Assembly will need to pass implementing legislation to determine what, if anything, changes about the actual voter registration process.
Rooted in immigration concerns
North Carolina is one of eight states voting on whether to enshrine explicit language forbidding noncitizens from voting in 2024 — alongside neighboring South Carolina, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — though all eight state constitutions are already understood to forbid it.
The wave of ballot referenda began in 2018 with a measure in North Dakota that proposed an even briefer revision — editing “every citizen” to “only a citizen” in its constitution’s voting provision — after some municipalities in California and Maryland enfranchised noncitizens in some local elections, such as for school board positions. The measure passed with about 66 percent of the vote, triggering similar initiatives — all successful — in several other states.
Voters in Florida, Colorado, and Alabama passed identical language changes in the 2020 elections, and Ohio and Louisiana followed suit with explicit prohibitions on noncitizen voting in 2022. So far, every amendment proposal of this type has passed, despite organizing efforts by voting rights and other civil liberties advocacy groups.
While advocates have pointed to efforts to give noncitizens voting rights in some local elections around the country, the language of the amendment also echoes former president Donald Trump’s widely discredited claim that fraudulent votes by undocumented immigrants played a decisive role in the 2020 presidential election.
“Our elections are bad. And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote,” Trump said in September’s presidential debate. “That’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.”
In fact, examples of illegal noncitizen voting in U.S. elections are extremely rare. The North Carolina State Board of Elections reports only eight referred cases of non-citizen registration or voting from 2015 to 2022. A database by the conservative Heritage Foundation shows just 12 North Carolina residents found to have done so since 1979, and none in 2020.
By removing any reference to people “born in the United States,” the proposal also carries a hint of Trump’s repeated vows to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a pledge that would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“On Day One of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said in a campaign video last May.
Likewise, opponents have suggested omitting the reference to “every person who has been naturalized” could presage efforts to undermine the voting rights of foreign-born U.S. citizens — mirroring efforts like the Trump administration’s “denaturalization task force” targeting even immigrants who have attained full citizenship.
Proponents seek “clear and certain” language
Backers of the “citizens-only amendment” argue that the change simply makes the constitution’s language clearer and serves to deter noncitizens from attempting to vote.
Andy Jackson of the conservative John Locke Foundation urged lawmakers to adopt the plain and direct phrasing in June remarks to a committee of the North Carolina House of Representatives, arguing that it would help ensure election integrity.
“North Carolina law currently does limit voter registration to citizens,” Jackson said. “However, temporary legislative majorities or temporary judicial majorities can brush those protections aside. A constitutional amendment stating unequivocally that only citizens of the United States may vote would protect our current understanding.”
Jackson added that the current language referencing only U.S.-born and naturalized citizens technically excludes citizens by birth who were born abroad — such as North Carolina rapper J. Cole, who was born an American citizen on a military base in Germany.
Dinan, the expert on state constitutions, said some advocates fear the current language leaves room for future courts and legislatures to reinterpret the constitution to allow noncitizens to vote in state and local races — something that is presently held to violate state law.
“Advocates of this amendment are therefore arguing that passage of this amendment would make absolutely clear and certain that no future state court or state legislature or local government in North Carolina could allow non-citizens to vote in state or local elections,” Dinan wrote in an email.
The amendment also has the support of the North Carolina Republican Party, which backed the proposal as it made its way through the General Assembly earlier this year.
“Ensuring that only U.S. Citizens in North Carolina can vote is a critical step that is needed in order to have confidence in our election,” party chair Jason Simmons said in a July press release. “The NCGOP will put our full support behind this amendment in the November General Election.”
North Carolina Republicans’ support for the bill represents a continuation of the party’s efforts to maintain and raise barriers to voting. In August, the party sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections alleging the body had failed to remove jurors who identified as noncitizens from voting rolls — one of five lawsuits the party filed this year seeking to cull the number of registered voters.
Opponents see plot to suppress votes
Those opposed to the referendum maintain that the constitution already clearly prohibits noncitizens from voting — arguing that the ballot effort only seeks to confuse eligible voters and fearmonger against immigrants.
The League of Women Voters of North Carolina condemned the proposed amendment as fueling “unfounded anti-immigrant fears and conspiracy theories” that allege undocumented immigrants are voting en masse — claims that have repeatedly failed to turn up evidence.
“This amendment attempts to erode voter confidence ahead of the November elections, based on lies about who is voting,” League President Jennifer McMillan Rubin said in a statement. “This effort is rooted in an anti-immigrant agenda in direct opposition to this country’s history and values.”
Cheryl Carter, the co-executive director of Democracy North Carolina, linked the amendment to election denialism and xenophobia, accusing proponents of “scapegoating our immigrant community members for baseless election integrity issues”
The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union warned that the amendment could lead foreign-born U.S. citizens into falsely believing they are ineligible to vote.
“The wording of this amendment, which strips out specific language acknowledging that citizens may be born or naturalized, may confuse naturalized citizens and discourage them from exercising their fundamental right to vote,” the group wrote in September.
Dinan, the Wake Forest professor, wrote that some voters may see the ballot initiative and come to the incorrect conclusion that noncitizens are currently allowed to vote in North Carolina — despite existing prohibitions at the state and federal levels.
This, in turn, could make them more receptive to conspiracy theories that noncitizen voters changed the outcome of election — a claim Trump has signaled he intends to repeat should he lose the 2024 contest.
While the North Carolina Democratic Party has remained silent on the referendum — and did not respond to a request for comment regarding its position on the vote — a few Democratic lawmakers have spoken out against it. State Rep. Pricey Harrison called the proposal a “political ploy” intended to get more Republicans out to vote, and warned it could suppress voting by new U.S. citizens who are unsure about their rights.
“It is going to probably have a chilling effect on new citizen voting,” Harrison said. “And there’s a number of people who wouldn’t be able to produce their birth certificate or a passport — and my guess is it’s mostly low-income and marginalized voters — so I think it could actually be voter-suppressing.”