Barriers to the Ballot Box: How Proof-of-Citizenship Laws Reshape Access to Voting

Throughout American history, limits have been placed on voting to disenfranchise marginalized groups of people while protecting the rights of others. Poll taxes once forced Americans to pay for the right to vote. The grandfather clause ensured that only certain families could access that right at all. While these policies are now illegal, the question remains: what happens when barriers to voting do not disappear, but simply evolve?

Today, Michigan finds itself confronting a modern version of that same problem, driven by barriers of documentation, cost, and access.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, introduced in the United States House of Representatives, would require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. While federal in origin, similar efforts are gaining traction at the state level. In Michigan specifically, this means a push to amend the state constitution to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

Supporters, such as Speaker of the House of Representatives Matt Hall (R-42) and other Republican lawmakers, frame the measure as a safeguard against non-citizen voting, arguing that more strict verification strengthens public trust in elections. They contend that requiring proof of citizenship is a preventative step to ensure election integrity, and that current identification requirements do not go far enough in verifying citizenship status. On the surface, that goal seems reasonable.

But in practice, the policy could place new burdens on the very people it claims to serve, particularly naturalized citizens and immigrant communities.

Instances of noncitizen voting are exceedingly rare - estimated at 0.0001% - a likelihood even lower than being struck by lightning - and citizenship is already a requirement to vote. In action, these measures will reduce accessibility to voter registration, disproportionately impacting specific groups, while raising new barriers and silencing eligible voters. 

Under the SAVE Act’s stipulations, “proving one’s citizenship” may not be as simple as presenting a driver’s license. In particular, naturalized citizens, or citizens that have immigrated to the United States, must rely on certificates of naturalization. These certificates cost hundreds of dollars and significant time and energy to replace if lost or damaged, creating additional financial and logistical burdens. Differences in legal names across documents due to factors such as marriage, cultural naming conventions, or clerical inconsistencies can complicate or delay voter registration.

In Sikh communities, for example, common surnames like Kaur and Singh are deeply rooted in religious and cultural identity and are widely shared. However, inconsistent recording of these names across documents doesn’t just create discrepancies: it creates barriers that people feel deeply. A slight difference in spelling or formatting can trigger mismatches, forcing individuals to defend their identity over and over again. What should be routine becomes frustrating, stressful, and even disheartening, as people are made to navigate systems that fail to recognize them for who they are.

This burden is not insignificant in scale. Approximately 58% of Asian American immigrants are naturalized citizens, meaning a majority would be required to navigate these additional costs and documentation hurdles simply to access a right they already hold. Policies that hinge on specific documentation therefore risk disproportionately impacting AAPI communities, effectively placing a financial and bureaucratic barrier in front of civic participation.

These barriers stand in stark contrast to the reality of civic engagement within these communities. In a survey administered by SALDEF, 89% of Sikhs reported voting in 2016, and 90% of registered voters planned to participate in subsequent elections. In Michigan alone, over 221,000 eligible AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islander) voters form a powerful electorate - larger than the population of Grand Rapids - capable of shaping outcomes in key races and communities. National Sikh survey data further reinforces this pattern of strong civic engagement. This makes the potential impact of these policies especially concerning: restrictions on voter registration would not affect a marginal group, but a large, active, and politically engaged population, including Michigan’s growing AAPI and Sikh communities.

As a young Sikh American explains:

“As a Sikh in America watching the rise in racial profiling from government agencies such as DHS and ICE, it truly concerns me that requiring and policing elections with proof of citizenship would only lead to the targeting and profiling of minority communities. I am especially concerned for those that ‘look different’ in a turban or beard, may speak differently and aren’t fluent in English, and those who are new to a democratic voting system, as they could be the victims of such a policy.”

The proposal also emphasizes in-person proof of citizenship, adding yet another obstacle. For those with limited transportation, inflexible work schedules, or caregiving responsibilities, this requirement makes access to the ballot even more difficult. For example, a single parent working full-time may not have the time or resources to resolve documentation issues in person, effectively losing their ability to vote.

These barriers do not strengthen democracy - they subvert it. It is less about the protection of voting rights and more so about the suppression of voices.

The proposed amendment has already passed the House and is headed to the Senate at the federal level, where its impact would apply to federal elections, including presidential races. At the same time, organizers in Michigan have gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures to place a similar measure on the 2026 state ballot, where its outcome would directly affect voting requirements within the state. As Michigan considers this policy, the stakes are clear. With the issue heading to the ballot, its future will ultimately be decided not by lawmakers, but by voters across the state.

History has shown us that barriers to voting do not always appear as outright bans. Sometimes, they take the form of costs, requirements, and systems that make participation harder for some than others.

Michigan now has a choice: learn from that history, or risk repeating it. Sikh communities - and all marginalized communities - cannot afford to stay on the sidelines. Each of us has a role to play, whether by:

• Calling legislators through tools like 5 Calls: Reaching out to elected officials is one of the most direct ways to influence policy. Platforms like 5 Calls make it easy to contact legislators and ensure that our voices are heard on issues that affect our communities.

• Organizing within our communities: Change begins at the local level, through conversations and collective action within our own spaces. By organizing in gurdwaras, community centers, and local networks, we can build awareness and mobilize others to advocate for inclusive policies.

• Showing up at the ballot box and voting: Voting remains one of the most powerful tools for shaping policy and representation. In Michigan, voters participate in both primary and general elections, including the statewide primary on August 4, 2026, and the general election on November 3, 2026, with options to vote early, absentee, or in person. Showing up at the ballot box ensures that our communities are not only heard, but counted in the decisions that shape our future.

  
  

Through advocacy, voter engagement, and collective action, we must ensure that policies do not silence the very voices they claim to protect.