Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Voting Rights topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sponsor asks voters to prohibit noncitizen voting; proponents point to other states, opponents not present

2665383 · March 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative David Ray introduced HJR 1018 to amend Arkansas' constitution to restrict voting in state and local elections to U.S. citizens only. Sponsor and research witness argued some state/local governments elsewhere have allowed noncitizen voting and cited court rulings; committee took no vote.

Representative David Ray presented House Joint Resolution 1018, a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit eligibility to vote in Arkansas to United States citizens only. Ray said the change would close any statutory or home-rule loopholes that would allow municipalities to enfranchise noncitizen residents in local elections.

Becky Arps, director of research for Americans for Citizen Voting, testified with the sponsor and pointed to recent municipal laws and litigation in other states. She told the committee that California city councils and some jurisdictions in the U.S. have considered or adopted noncitizen voting for local (often school board) elections and that a California court held the state constitution did not bar local enfranchisement. Arps summarized: “If you wanna vote, become a citizen. This bill is about clarifying that only US citizens can vote in Arkansas elections.”

Representative Ray cited a national trend of ballot measures and state amendments explicitly requiring citizen-only voting; he supplied a polling handout showing about 70% support among Arkansas respondents in a recent poll. Committee members asked technical questions about how Arkansas' constitution and statutes currently read; the sponsor and witness said state statute focuses on registration while the constitution’s existing language does not create an explicit exclusive ceiling, referencing out-of-state litigation (Lacey v. San Francisco City and County) as an example of courts interpreting similar language.

No committee vote occurred.