Citizenship Voting Amendments: 2026 Ballot Results

Citizenship voting amendments sailed through in at least three states on Tuesday, while voters in Arizona and California turned down measures that paired the same citizenship principle with new voter ID rules. West Virginia, Arkansas and Kansas wrote “only U.S. citizens may vote” language into their constitutions, and The Hill reported that South Dakota did the same. The split result says less about noncitizen voting, which is already illegal in federal elections and in all of these states, than about how far voters were willing to go in changing the mechanics of casting a ballot.

The votes came at the end of a campaign season in which noncitizen voting moved from talking point to active enforcement. The Justice Department has charged dozens of people, most of them green card holders, with illegal voting, and its effort to build lists of suspected noncitizen voters has been blocked by a federal judge on Privacy Act grounds. Tuesday’s results show how that fight plays when it is put directly to voters. Colorado’s separate Amendment 81, on police notice to DHS after certain criminal charges, was also on the ballot.

Where citizenship voting amendments passed and failed

State	Measure	What it does	Result reported
West Virginia	Amendment 1	Citizen-only voting in the constitution	Passed, 79% to 21%, all votes counted
Arkansas	Issue 1	Changes “may” vote to “only” citizens may vote	Projected to pass, about 69% yes as of 12:30 a.m. EST Wednesday
Kansas	Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment	Citizen-only voting in Article 5	Approved; no percentage reported
South Dakota	Amendment J	Citizen-only voting in the constitution	Approved, per The Hill
Arizona	Proposition 144	Citizen-only language plus ID for mail ballots	Trailing, 57% no in early returns
California	Proposition 39	ID at the polls and annual citizenship checks of voter rolls	Failed, about 60% no with 49% counted (AP call)

Sources: The West Virginia Record (WV); The Hill via Decision Desk HQ (AR, SD); WIBW (KS); KJZZ (AZ, early returns Nov. 3); CalMatters/LAist citing the AP (CA). Results as of early Nov. 4, 2026, and not yet certified.

Results for Alaska’s citizen-only voting initiative, Ballot Measure 3, were not yet available.

What the amendments change, and what they do not

Federal law already settles the core question. A noncitizen who votes in a federal election commits a crime under 18 U.S.C. 611, and falsely claiming citizenship to register is a separate federal offense. State elections are likewise limited to citizens. The new amendments close a narrower gap: wording that says citizens “may” vote without saying only citizens can.

West Virginia shows the gap plainly. According to The West Virginia Record, state law already required U.S. citizenship to vote, but the constitution referred only to “citizens of the state,” a term the constitution defines by residence. State Sen. Patricia Rucker, the Republican assistant majority leader, told the paper that having the rule in code “is not enough.” Arkansas already required citizenship and photo ID, The Hill reported, and Kansas opponents told WIBW their constitution already excluded noncitizens.

The practical target is local elections. A handful of jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia and several Maryland towns, let some noncitizens vote in municipal races. A state constitutional ban forecloses that option for every city and county in the state, which is why supporters treat the amendments as preventive rather than corrective. Including West Virginia, 25 states now have citizen-only voting language in their constitutions, The West Virginia Record reported.

Why the ID measures lost

The two defeats share a feature: neither was a simple statement of principle. Arizona’s Prop 144 would have required ID for mail ballots, a change Axios described as deciding the future of mail-in voting in the state. California’s Prop 39 would have required government ID at polling places, the last four digits of an ID number on mail ballots, and annual checks of voter rolls for noncitizens. Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a backer, said it was built on what voters across the political spectrum want; the League of Women Voters of California countered that no widespread noncitizen voting justified strict new rules, CalMatters reported.

The pattern points to a distinction that will shape the next round. Voters in four Republican-leaning states readily affirmed that only citizens vote. Voters in Arizona and California were far less willing to accept procedural changes that touch every voter, citizen or not. Campaigns that bundle the two are likely to face the same resistance. Measures that stuck to the citizenship clause passed comfortably in every state that has reported results.

For immigrants, the amendments change little in practice. Green card holders and visa holders were already barred from these elections, and illegal voting or a false claim of citizenship can lead to removal and can permanently close the path to naturalization. The live questions are about verification, not wording, from the errors found in the Justice Department’s noncitizen voter list to the Supreme Court’s refusal to let the department hold disputed California mail ballots.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts