Editor's note: This story was updated with information about a lawsuit filed Thursday in Arizona.
When Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, he set the stage for another federal court battle on the issue. Legislators in other states have considered similar legislation but so far none have advanced as far as Arizona’s changes.
The new law retroactively requires all voters to provide proof of citizenship, even those who are already registered to cast ballots in the state, updating a 2004 provision that only put that burden on new voters.
Opponents of the new law say as many as 190,000 people may be removed from the voter rolls because no such requirement existed when they registered. They would need to re-register, but might not be aware of the change in their status.
Lawmakers in a handful of other states also have been pushing voter registration changes tied to citizenship this year.
This isn’t a new fight
Under federal law, people registering to vote must attest that they are citizens, but they are not required to provide any proof of their status. States may impose their own citizenship requirements for state and local elections, and a few have done so but only Arizona has put it into practice.
Since 2004, Arizona has required people registered to vote to include proof of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state cannot require such documentation from people who use the federal voter registration form. Therefore, Arizonans who use the federal form may not vote in state and local elections.
An attorney for the state House told lawmakers the new requirements violate federal law, and a lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in U.S. District Court.
"This is an obvious attempt by Arizona Republicans to limit access to voting, but we’ll fight to ensure that no voter is wrongly disenfranchised," said Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who filed the case on behalf of the civic engagmeent group Mi Familia Vota.
In 2016, Alabama, Georgia and Kansas asked the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. The case went to federal court, which put a stop to the request.
Proponents of requiring documentary proof of citizenship say such laws are critical to fending off voter fraud, even though instances of illegal voting are rare and do not impact election outcomes.
Opponents say these laws can actually prevent some eligible citizens from voting because they may not possess the required documentation.
“Those most likely to be affected by these laws are students, the elderly, the disabled, low-income individuals, the homeless, and naturalized citizens,” Stuart Naifeh, a former senior counsel at the liberal think tank Demos, wrote in 2014. Aside from these narrow populations, across the board, Native Americans, African Americans and members of other historically disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups are also less likely to have, or have ready access to, documents that will satisfy documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.”
Other bills being considered
In Mississippi, Republican lawmakers had been on the verge of advancing legislation that would have put into place aggressive measures to purge voter rolls of noncitizens. But just prior to a vote in the state House, Republicans amended the bill to soften the language and make it harder to cancel a voter’s registration.
When GOP lawmakers determined the bill would be bad for democracy, they agreed to the change, according to the Clarion Ledger.
That bill has been passed by both chambers and awaits the governor’s signature.
In Idaho, the House has passed a bill that would require people registering to vote on Election Day to provide proof of citizenship. Voter registration in Idaho requires a driver’s license or Social Security number, but a license can be obtained by non-citizens. The state enacted a law in March that adds a “citizenship” notation to driver’s licenses.
In 2020, more than 87,000 people registered to vote on Election Day in Idaho, accounting for approximately 10 percent of the ballots cast.
The bill was passed by the House on March 14 and has been referred to a Senate committee for consideration.
Legislators in at least two other states have attempted to impose new citizenship requirements, but their proposals did not advance.
In Oklahoma, language was removed from a bill that would have required all registered voters to re-register and provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Anyone who did not do so would only be permitted to vote in federal elections Election Secretary Paul Ziriax convinced lawmakers that such a requirement would be expensive, possibly unconstitutional and a heavy burden on voters, according to Oklahoma Watch.
And in Washington, a bill to require all registered voters to provide proof of citizenship failed to advance out of a House committee.
Other bills have been introduced in Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, according to the Voting Rights Lab's legislation tracker.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."