Citizenship Voting Requirement AmendmentConstitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Only Citizens May Vote
Explain it like I'm 5
Kansas already requires voters to be U.S. citizens. This would make that rule more explicit in the state Constitution, like adding a clear “members only” sign to a door.
Yes vote
Changing the Kansas Constitution to say that only U.S. citizens who meet the age and residency rules may vote.
No vote
Keeping the current constitutional wording, which says qualified U.S. citizens may vote.
The question to ask yourself
Is an explicit constitutional ban worth adding even though existing law already requires citizenship, or could the new wording create risks for eligible voters?
The case for
- Makes the citizen-only rule explicit in the state Constitution.
- Could prevent local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections.
- Makes the rule harder to change than an ordinary statute.
Backed by: Americans for Citizen Voting, Rep. Pat Proctor
The case against
- Kansas law already bars noncitizens from voting, making the amendment unnecessary.
- Sources found no evidence that Kansas cities currently allow noncitizens to vote.
- Opponents say the wording could support future proof-of-citizenship or other registration restrictions.
Opposed by: ACLU of Kansas, League of Women Voters of Kansas, Loud Light Civic Action, Women 4 Kansas
- Money
- No direct cost, tax change, or fiscal impact was estimated for the amendment.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say a no vote supports noncitizen voting, because current Kansas law already requires citizenship; the amendment mainly changes constitutional wording.