SHARED FROM POSITION STATEMENT BY ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES:

The Arkansas Constitution already restricts the right to vote to U.S. citizens who are residents of Arkansas. The amendment changes a few words but makes no substantive changes. So why propose the amendment at all?  

Moreover, the incidence of noncitizens voting is extremely rare. Despite this fact, there has been a movement across the country to require proof of citizenship for voter registration. At first glance, this effort may seem reasonable. The issue, though, is that many U.S. citizens don’t have proof-of-citizenship documents readily available. That is where the issue lies. If voters approve the proposed amendment, the General Assembly could use the amendment as the impetus to pass new restrictive proof of citizenship legislation in 2027, establishing requirements that many qualified voters could not meet.  

The America First Legal Foundation, one of the main proponents of proof of citizenship requirements has pushed for the use of the following documents, as outlined in a recent petition they sent to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission:  

• U.S. Passport. 

• State-issued Real ID-compliant driver’s license indicating that the applicant is a citizen. 

• Official military identification card that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States; or,  

• Valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen or if such identification is otherwise accompanied by proof of United States citizenship.  

Let’s look at the issues with each of these: 

• U.S. Passport: According to the Center for American Progress, only 28.4% of U.S. citizens residing in Arkansas had a valid U.S. passport in 2024. For most Arkansans, passports are not an option to prove citizenship. Passports also can be a financial burden. For a first-time applicant, a passport card currently costs $65 and a passport book $165.  

• State-issued Real ID-compliant driver’s license indicating that the applicant is a citizen: In June 2025, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration reported only about 1 million Arkansans had a State-Issued Real ID, about half of the adult population. But the Arkansas-issued Real ID does not list the ID-holder’s citizenship status. For the Real ID to be a viable proof-of-citizenship document, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration would have to change the formatting of the Arkansas Real ID, which would perhaps require significant investment by the state government (not to mention the reissuance of Real IDs to those in possession of an ID with the current format).  

• An official military identification card that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States: Military IDs do not currently indicate a person’s citizenship status. The Department of Defense (DOD) would need to change the current format of IDs; and servicemembers, veterans, their spouses, and others with DOD-issued IDs would have to acquire new IDs for them to be used as proof of citizenship for voter registration. Once again, changing ID formats would come with a cost to the government, in this case, the federal government.   

Aside from issues with any one form of identification, there are other, broader, issues with the proof of citizenship requirement both to register to vote and to vote.  

• Non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare: Of the hundreds of millions of votes cast between 2002 and 2023, the Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Map reported 85 cases of noncitizens voting. New proof of citizenship requirements are a solution in search of a problem.  

• Documentation is not easily accessible: The Brennan Center for Justice reported over 21 million Americans do not have easy access to documents proving their citizenship. Many of these voters could effectively lose their right to vote if the rule on proof of citizenship is changed. 

• It is already difficult to register to vote in Arkansas: Do Arkansans care less about their communities and what is happening with their government than residents of other states? We don’t think so. But, according to a KFF analysis of voter registration rates in November 2024, Arkansas had the lowest percentage of registered voters as a share of the voter population at 64.7%. Administrative barriers, like being one of only a handful of states that does not provide online voter registration, makes it harder for Arkansans to register. Requiring proof of citizenship to the voter registration process will only exacerbate our state’s already low voter registration rate. 

• It would require more bureaucracy and financial investment: County clerk offices throughout the state would also need to create new bureaucracy to review and confirm citizenship status using the newly required documentation. 

• It would open up voters to the risk of identity theft: New proof of citizenship requirements could put people’s personal information and identity at risk when having to share proof of citizenship documentation via mail.   

• New requirements are unnecessary: There are already ways to investigate, identify, and charge noncitizens who have voted illegally, as our state Attorney General has recently done.  

As the national debate around voting rights centers on proof of citizenship, we hope the Arkansas General Assembly proceeds with caution in 2027. Should they pursue efforts to prevent the already exceedingly rare cases of noncitizen voting, they must not disenfranchise the rights of citizens who are legally eligible to vote in the process.  

On a final, important note, there is also an effort to move through a citizen-only voting requirement nationwide, through Congress. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act passed the U.S. House of Representative on February 11. It is now in the Senate for consideration. The most significant impact of the SAVE Act, if it becomes law, will be to disenfranchise many eligible voters across the country.  

Key Arguments Against the Amendment

• Concerns Over "Without Limitation": Opponents and local commentators, such as columnists in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, point out that adding the phrase "without limitation" for accessories and components creates legal ambiguity.

• Public Safety and Regulation Risks: Critics worry the sweeping wording could tie the hands of lawmakers. It might prevent future or existing common-sense regulations on items like high-capacity magazines or conversion kits that modify standard firearms into automatic weapons.

• Redundancy: Some argue that the state and federal protections already adequately cover gun ownership rights, making the specific addition of unrestricted accessories and component clauses unnecessary or legally risky.