COLUMBUS, Ohio — After setbacks in Congress and the courts, the push to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote has shifted to a quieter venue: a small federal agency that oversees the national voter registration form. By the filing deadline this week, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission had received more than 380,000 public comments on a conservative petition to add the requirement, according to Associated Press.

A new front at the EAC

The petition comes from America First Legal, a group co-founded by former Trump aide Stephen Miller. It urges the four-member EAC—two Republicans and two Democrats—to update the federal form to require applicants to submit documentary proof that they are U.S. citizens. The group calls the change “essential to enhance the integrity and reliability of voter registration processes, ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens are permitted to register and vote in federal elections,” as reported by Associated Press.

Conservative lawmakers have endorsed the idea as a “simple, common-sense reform,” likening it to presenting identification to fly or open a bank account, AP reported. Voting-rights advocates counter that noncitizen voting is already illegal and rare, and that the practical burdens of a new documentary hurdle would fall heavily on eligible voters.

What the form requires today

Today’s federal voter registration form already asks applicants to swear they are U.S. citizens—under penalty of perjury. Violations can mean fines, imprisonment and, for noncitizens, deportation, according to Associated Press. Congress ratified that approach when it created the EAC under the Help America Vote Act in 2002. The EAC can revise the federal form, but there is sharp debate over whether it can unilaterally impose a sweeping new documentation rule without Congress.

America First Legal argues the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 gives the commission the authority to act; the NVRA established the federal form and assigned the EAC to maintain it. But the scope of that authority is contested under the statute itself, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center said the EAC would first have to determine such documentation is “necessary” to assess eligibility, adding, “In my view, asking for information is one thing. Asking for additional documents and evidence beyond the information the form collects is another thing,” AP reported.

Who would be affected—and how

America First Legal proposes four categories of acceptable documents:

  • A U.S. passport
  • A REAL ID-compliant driver’s license that lists citizenship
  • A military ID indicating citizenship
  • A federal or state photo ID that indicates citizenship or is accompanied by proof of citizenship

Of those, only a passport would be universally reliable—yet only about half of Americans have one, Associated Press noted. Only five states mark citizenship on REAL ID driver’s licenses, and military IDs often do not. Voters relying on other government IDs could need supplementary papers—like a birth certificate—that many people do not have readily available.

Those logistical frictions would not be abstract. Diaz warned that women who changed their names after marriage might need to assemble a birth certificate, a marriage certificate and current government ID just to register. “It’s just creating hurdle after hurdle after hurdle for eligible U.S. citizens to be able to vote,” he said, according to Associated Press.

Research underscores the access concerns. Analyses summarized by the Brennan Center have linked strict voter-ID regimes to modest turnout declines among some groups, with several studies finding reductions of up to roughly 3% among minority voters in certain settings. State practices vary widely, as cataloged by the National Conference of State Legislatures, meaning a one-size federal documentary rule could interact unevenly with existing systems. The ACLU has reported that proof-of-citizenship requirements tend to disproportionately burden low-income, minority, elderly and rural voters who face greater obstacles in obtaining underlying documents.

Is noncitizen voting the problem?

Opponents of the petition argue that it is not. “Cases of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections remain ‘extraordinarily rare’ because the risks outweigh the rewards,” said Susannah Goodman, election security director at Common Cause, in comments reported by AP. “There is no threat to our democracy from noncitizens voting.”

Proponents answer that the current deterrent—perjury—does not get enforced robustly. “States are relying on a broken ‘trust but don’t verify’ system for registering voters,” said Justin Riemer of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. “The EAC’s registration form ties the hands of states trying to ensure that only citizens register and vote. That must change,” according to Associated Press. America First Legal argues perjury enforcement is “nearly non-existent.”

Democratic leaders have lined up against the change. “States already have multiple systems in place to ensure that only eligible Americans vote in elections; states already determine voters’ citizenship statuses without the burdensome requirement requested in the petition,” Sen. Alex Padilla of California and Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York told the commission, AP reported.

The political and legal backdrop

Congress has wrestled with the idea for years. The SAVE Act, which would impose proof-of-citizenship nationwide, passed the House but stalled in the Senate amid bipartisan opposition, according to Associated Press. The courts have also been a brake: two federal courts blocked a recent executive order aimed at compelling the EAC to add documentary proof to the form, finding the action exceeded presidential authority, AP reported. More broadly, courts have frequently scrutinized escalations in voting requirements, part of a steady stream of cases chronicled by NPR.

With Congress gridlocked and the executive route shut, advocates have pivoted to administrative rulemaking at the EAC. The move raises separation-of-powers questions—how far can an agency go under the NVRA without fresh legislation?—that will likely be tested if commissioners act. The broader partisan divide is familiar: Republicans emphasize election integrity; Democrats emphasize access, as described by the Brookings Institution.

The tradeoffs—and a road map

For commissioners, the policy calculus is blunt: potential, incremental gains in verification versus tangible access costs and administrative complexity. Evidence summarized by the Brennan Center points to participation risks for some groups; advocates like Common Cause and the Campaign Legal Center warn the burdens would be real even if noncitizen voting is rare.

Several process steps could help the EAC navigate the crosscurrents before any change:

  • Conduct a rigorous evidence review on the incidence of noncitizen voting and the marginal benefit of documentary proof
  • Analyze the commission’s legal authority under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and anticipate judicial review
  • Complete an equity impact assessment of document access and likely barriers
  • Hold focused stakeholder sessions with state election officials, civil-rights and immigrant-serving groups, and legal experts
  • Pilot verification procedures with willing jurisdictions and propose mitigations such as free document programs and alternative affidavits under penalty of perjury

What comes next

The EAC’s immediate task is procedural. The agency will review the 380,000-plus comments and decide by majority vote whether to proceed with the petition; if it does, a formal rulemaking process would follow, including another comment window and public hearings, according to Associated Press. Any outcome will test the outer edge of the NVRA’s framework—and how much election policy a small federal commission can make in the absence of congressional consensus.

What is certain is that the debate is not going away. Whether the EAC moves ahead or taps the brakes, the fight over balancing verification and access will continue to migrate across institutions—Congress, the courts, and now a little-known commission—until the country decides where to draw the line.