Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would bar people who are not citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents from voting in any federal, state, tribal, local, District of Columbia, or territorial election. If adopted by the required bodies and the states, the change would become part of the Constitution and could be enforced by Congress through future laws. It will only become part of the Constitution if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve it and three-fourths of the state legislatures ratify it within seven years.
As a proposed constitutional amendment, it must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures; the President does not sign or veto constitutional amendments. The resolution itself sets a seven-year deadline for state ratification.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to bar from voting any person who is not a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent resident.
The ban would apply to Federal, State, Tribal, and local elections, including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
It gives Congress authority to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.
Contentious constitutional amendment with broad preemption and no compromise features; requires rare supermajorities and widespread state ratification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly proposes a substantive constitutional change that directly defines who may vote and the full scope of covered elections, but it relies almost entirely on future congressional action for implementation details.
Progressives worry about stigma, tribal sovereignty, and needless amendment use.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about stigma, tribal sovereignty, and needless amendment use.
Likely to view the amendment skeptically and oppose it as unnecessary and possibly harmful.
Concerns include stigmatizing immigrants, federal overreach into local and tribal self‑governance, and using a constitutional amendment for a limited practical problem.
Mixed reaction: accepts the goal of preventing noncitizen voting in many contexts but questions the need for a constitutional amendment.
Will emphasize federalism, clarity about lawful permanent residents, and possible statutory alternatives.
Likely to favor the amendment as a clear safeguard against noncitizen voting.
Views it as protecting electoral integrity and preventing municipalities or jurisdictions from allowing noncitizen votes.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious constitutional amendment with broad preemption and no compromise features; requires rare supermajorities and widespread state ratification.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about stigma, tribal sovereignty, and needless amendment use.
Contentious constitutional amendment with broad preemption and no compromise features; requires rare supermajorities and widespread state r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly proposes a substantive constitutional change that directly defines who may vote and the full scope of covered elections, but it relies almost entirely on futu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.