During the last several years, Congress and many statehouses across the U.S. have debated additional efforts to verify the citizenship of registered voters. A 1996 federal law already requires citizenship for voting in federal elections; the discussion has been more about ways to ensure that states are enforcing it. Although many states have audited their rolls for noncitizen voting recently and found it to be insignificant, there isn’t model legislation or “best practices” for staying atop the issue.
The real question is how to do it in a way that is accurate, efficient, and builds trust in the system. A few states offer useful lessons.
One is Georgia, which takes a front-end, data-driven approach. Their process is called “front-end” because no voters are added to the rolls until their citizenship status is confirmed.
First, Georgia leverages information it already has in its driver licensing system to significantly narrow the number of records that need further review. Over 99 percent of Georgia drivers licenses are REAL IDs, and the Department of Driver Services logs the documents that applicants use to demonstrate eligibility.
Because of data-sharing between government agencies, this means that election workers can check whether voter registrants used a proof of citizenship document to obtain their REAL ID — which is usually the case — or if they used a document required of noncitizens by DDS.
Georgia then uses the federal SAVE system to confirm citizenship from those on that smaller list, before following up with voter applicants directly to request documentation. Finally, the state performs regular audits using the SAVE platform, to find registrations that have fallen through the cracks and provide reassurance to Georgia voters that they can have confidence in their elections.
This process minimizes the burdens on Georgia voters and election officials to ensure that only citizens are on its voter rolls. It also minimizes the amount of personal information shared with the federal government by relying on state data first — a principle that resonates broadly with voters and policymakers.
By comparison, a new law recently adopted in Kentucky takes a more cautious, back-end approach. Unlike Georgia, Kentucky has a low REAL ID adoption rate, so it does not possess as much information about the citizenship status of its residents. In its current form, the new law calls for SAVE to identify potential noncitizens that are currently on its voter rolls, then contact the registered voters and give them the opportunity to confirm their status.
However, before implementation, policymakers are planning to work with election administrators to build in safeguards, such as timing restrictions and using REAL ID data first. This will limit the risk of “false positives,” or incorrectly identifying registered noncitizens; protect voter information; and avoid action too close to elections. The lesson there is: Build in strong due process and clear guardrails.
The final example here, and the first state to tackle proof of citizenship, is Arizona, which adopted its law in 2004. But Arizona’s experience provides a cautionary example. Because of court challenges to its law, Arizona has a “dual” voter registration system, with confirmed citizens able to vote only in state (not federal) elections. The ballot that voters receive depends upon whether they have proven their citizenship status. This creates a more complex system for both voters and election officials.
The examples from Georgia, Kentucky, and Arizona provide a few lessons to other states about the best way to implement citizenship verification. The first is to integrate state databases, and use that existing state data first. This limits the unnecessary sharing of personal data beyond the state. The second lesson is to use a targeted approach to improve accuracy and reduce errors. The last is to build in due process and timing safeguards — to give voter registrants or registered voters fair notice, an opportunity to respond, and clear pre-election cutoffs.
If a state gets this right — integrating and using its own data first, being targeted in its approach, and building in clear safeguards — it can not only increase confidence that only citizens are voting. It can also ensure that the process is careful, accurate, and fair, which is its own worthwhile goal.
Three Examples of Verifying Voter Citizenship
During the last several years, Congress and many statehouses across the U.S. have debated additional efforts to verify the citizenship of registered voters. A 1996 federal law already requires citizenship for voting in federal elections; the discussion has been more about ways to ensure that states are enforcing it. Although many states have audited their rolls for noncitizen voting recently and found it to be insignificant, there isn’t model legislation or “best practices” for staying atop the issue.
The real question is how to do it in a way that is accurate, efficient, and builds trust in the system. A few states offer useful lessons.
One is Georgia, which takes a front-end, data-driven approach. Their process is called “front-end” because no voters are added to the rolls until their citizenship status is confirmed.
First, Georgia leverages information it already has in its driver licensing system to significantly narrow the number of records that need further review. Over 99 percent of Georgia drivers licenses are REAL IDs, and the Department of Driver Services logs the documents that applicants use to demonstrate eligibility.
Because of data-sharing between government agencies, this means that election workers can check whether voter registrants used a proof of citizenship document to obtain their REAL ID — which is usually the case — or if they used a document required of noncitizens by DDS.
Georgia then uses the federal SAVE system to confirm citizenship from those on that smaller list, before following up with voter applicants directly to request documentation. Finally, the state performs regular audits using the SAVE platform, to find registrations that have fallen through the cracks and provide reassurance to Georgia voters that they can have confidence in their elections.
This process minimizes the burdens on Georgia voters and election officials to ensure that only citizens are on its voter rolls. It also minimizes the amount of personal information shared with the federal government by relying on state data first — a principle that resonates broadly with voters and policymakers.
By comparison, a new law recently adopted in Kentucky takes a more cautious, back-end approach. Unlike Georgia, Kentucky has a low REAL ID adoption rate, so it does not possess as much information about the citizenship status of its residents. In its current form, the new law calls for SAVE to identify potential noncitizens that are currently on its voter rolls, then contact the registered voters and give them the opportunity to confirm their status.
However, before implementation, policymakers are planning to work with election administrators to build in safeguards, such as timing restrictions and using REAL ID data first. This will limit the risk of “false positives,” or incorrectly identifying registered noncitizens; protect voter information; and avoid action too close to elections. The lesson there is: Build in strong due process and clear guardrails.
The final example here, and the first state to tackle proof of citizenship, is Arizona, which adopted its law in 2004. But Arizona’s experience provides a cautionary example. Because of court challenges to its law, Arizona has a “dual” voter registration system, with confirmed citizens able to vote only in state (not federal) elections. The ballot that voters receive depends upon whether they have proven their citizenship status. This creates a more complex system for both voters and election officials.
The examples from Georgia, Kentucky, and Arizona provide a few lessons to other states about the best way to implement citizenship verification. The first is to integrate state databases, and use that existing state data first. This limits the unnecessary sharing of personal data beyond the state. The second lesson is to use a targeted approach to improve accuracy and reduce errors. The last is to build in due process and timing safeguards — to give voter registrants or registered voters fair notice, an opportunity to respond, and clear pre-election cutoffs.
If a state gets this right — integrating and using its own data first, being targeted in its approach, and building in clear safeguards — it can not only increase confidence that only citizens are voting. It can also ensure that the process is careful, accurate, and fair, which is its own worthwhile goal.