DCNOW Opposes Petition for a Rule Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship

By: Miriam Edelman

DCNOW objects to America First Legal Foundation’s (AFL) petition to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for a rule asking the EAC “to amend EAC Regulations and the National Mail Voter Registration Form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship [DPOC] to register to vote in federal elections.” As was discussed in DCNOW’s blog’s piece, entitled “DCNOW Opposes SAVE Act,” proof of citizenship would attack the ability of women to register to vote. Both the petition and the SAVE ACT would erode democracy.

The Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland in its report in March 2025 wrote, “[l]aws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote could inaccurately remove eligible citizens from the rolls.” This report also stated “[o]ver 21.3 million eligible voters (9%) across the country do not have, or do not have easy access to, DPOC.”

AFL, which top President Donald Trump aide Stephen Miller cofounded, is a nonprofit law firm that purports to:

“unapologetically and boldly defend the rights of everyday Americans. Through our rigorous litigation and government accountability efforts, we oppose lawless government overreach and fight to restore the rule of law in the United States.”

Key issues of AFL include “Dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion;” “Immigration;” “Parental Rights and Education;” and “Election Integrity.”

AFL’s Petition

On July 16, 2025, AFL filed a formal petition, which can be found on https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/America_First_Legal_EAC_DPOC_Rule_Petition.pdf, to the EAC to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. AFL’s press release on this petition referred to this requirement as a “[commonsense] requirement would strengthen election integrity by ensuring that only U.S. citizens can vote in U.S. elections.” The release also says:

“On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” requiring, among other things, that the EAC implement a DPOC requirement on the federal form. Following this directive, courts in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts temporarily halted the implementation of that portion of the order, questioning whether the President has the authority to order the EAC to take action. However, even those courts acknowledged that the EAC remains free to take action on its own to impose a DPOC requirement.”

“Today, AFL is giving the EAC a reason to act. Federal law allows any member of the public to file a “petition for rulemaking” with a federal agency, requesting it to adopt a new regulation or rule. Thus, AFL has filed a formal petition with the EAC requesting that it amend the federal voter registration form to require applicants to provide DPOC when registering to vote.”

“If an agency does not act on a petition for rulemaking, federal law allows the party that submitted the petition to sue, forcing the agency to act. AFL will be watching closely to ensure the EAC takes action expeditiously.”

Trump’s Executive Order

Sec 2. of Trump’s Executive Order said:

“Sec. 2.  Enforcing the Citizenship Requirement for Federal Elections.  To enforce the Federal prohibition on foreign nationals voting in Federal elections

(a)(i) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form issued under 52 U.S.C. 20508:”

The section describes what would count as DPOC.

Sec. 3. of Trump’s Executive Order said:

“d)  The Secretary of Defense shall update the Federal Post Card Application, pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 52 U.S.C. 20301, to require:

(i)   documentary proof of United States citizenship, as defined by section 2(a)(ii) of this order; and

(ii)  proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.”

Decisions in D.C. and Massachusetts

The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is on https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/103_Order%20Granting%20PI_1.pdf.

Judge Denise Casper’s preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is on gov.uscourts.mad.282905.107.0.pdf. Judge Denise Casper wrote in her preliminary injunction that President Donal Trump does not have the authority to require DPOC, specifically noting:

-          “The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes (the UOCAVA, the NVRA and the HAVA) do not require it, and the statutorily created EAC is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration.”

-          “Defendants cannot point to any source of authority for the President to impose this requirement on the States, particularly where the Elections Clause gives power over federal elections to Congress, and, in acting on that authority, Congress established the EAC to prescribe rules and regulations for elections and the NVRA requires voter registration agencies, including all offices in the States that provide public assistance, to distribute the federal voter registration form.”

-          “The States have also shown the risk of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction where the challenged sections of the Executive Order would burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs to revamp voter registration procedures and would impede the registration of eligible voters, many of whom lack ready access to documentary evidence of citizenship (e.g., U.S. passport and other forms of identification that reflect citizenship).”

-          “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.  Rather, the Constitution vests the President with “executive Power” and commands him to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  U.S. Const. art. II, §§ 1, 3.  The President “plays no direct role in the process” of appointing electors, “nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do.”  Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 627 (2024).” 

Public Comments

The general public can submit written comments under docket number EAC-2025-0236 on this petition before 11:59 p.m. EST on October 20, 2025, on https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/21/2025-15930/petition-of-america-first-legal-foundation-for-rulemaking-before-the-election-assistance-commission#open-comment. People can submit comments although a federal government shutdown is occurring. Comments are public, but a commenter can be Anonymous. Comments can vary in length and detail. As of October 17, 2025, over 340,000 comments have been received.

People can view posted comments on https://www.regulations.gov/document/EAC-2025-0236-0001/comment. At least some comments that oppose this petition are:

-          “The “show your papers” requirement is more than just bad policy—it’s a deliberate attempt to silence women voters. Many women, especially those who’ve changed their names after marriage, don’t have passports or up-to-date identification that perfectly matches their voter registration. Under this proposal, millions of women could be denied their right to vote because of paperwork technicalities. This isn’t about protecting elections—it’s about rolling back decades of progress and keeping women’s voices out of the democratic process. Voting is our right, and no government should be allowed to take that away under the guise of “security.”” – Anonymous

-          “Please don't make voting anymore [sic.] difficult than it is. The current rules of attesting to citizenship, providing proof of identity are more than sufficient. Not everyone can afford a Passport and not everyone drives. Married women may not have all the proof of name changes so making this change will ungainly discriminate against women. While I know the administration wants to remove womens [sic.] right to vote please don't [sic.] be complicit. There is no evidence of widespread voting by non citizens. This is a ploy by fascists to prevent women and people who are poor from voting” – Jeanette Goldberg

-          “As a women and a citizen I [sic.] am adamantly opposed to adding documentation requirements for voting. This is outright voter suppression. Many of the people I know do not possess the proposed documentation.

The proposal further specifically attempts to discriminate against women who because of the tradition of women changing their names for marriage. This proposal in my mind is anti democracy” – Margaret Freeman

-          “I’m against requiring citizens to submit a passport, birth certificate, or other citizenship documents to register to vote. Only half of American citizens have a passport and 69 million American citizens don’t have a birth certificate with their current legal name on it, most of them women who changed their names when they got married. Also, because more Republican women take their husbands name at marriage, and more republican [sic.] women are actually married than Democratic women, this will actually impact republican [sic.] women more than Democrats. Also more people in Red states have a lower level of literacy, and this will create an undue burden on people in RED STATES who will be more likely to have trouble completing the paperwork needed to prove their citizenship. What are you thinking? Someone has not thought through the ramifications of this bill.” – HC Gregory

-          “I am particularly against the SAVE act [sic.] that will require your current name to be that on your birth certificate. I, and many many other women who took their husband's last name at marriage would be locked out of voting. I see this as nothing more than a continued attack against women. Even if I changed my name to match my birth certificate I [sic.] would then have the time and expense of putting that birth name on my Social Security, my driver's license, my banking, my credit and debit cards. This thinly disguised attempt to deny women the vote is hateful and earns my contempt, and the contempt of many other women. I only wish I knew what women had done to make Republicans hate them so. If I knew I [sic.] would double down.” – Susan Davidson

-          “Do not amend the federal voter registration form requesting proof of citizenship. It's already illegal for non citizens to register to vote.This [sic.] is nothing more than san [sic.] attempt to discourage people from voting. States have a very efficient way to ensure that only citizens register and vote,” – League of Women Voters [Note – It may not really be the League of Women Voters.]

These comments show how easy it is to write a comment.

Some comments supporting the petition show how the other side does not make sense. Those comments include:

-          “Requiring proof of citizenship is consistent with the other countries I have lived in. Not once in my seventeen years of living outside of the US was I given an opportunity to vote in the country's elections. The only time I was allowed to vote was at a US consulate in US elections. Proof of citizenship should be required.” – Anonymous

-          “Even ONE noncitizen vote erodes public trust and cancels out a legal vote. We already require proof of citizenship for: Passports, Driver’s licenses, Social Security and elections should be the same. Voting is a sacred right for American citizens ONLY. Requiring DPOC ensures fairness, uniformity, and integrity. Voting should require Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC).” – Roger Austin

-          “YES!! I strongly support America First Legal’s petition to require documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voter registration in federal elections. The current ‘honor system’ is insufficient to protect election integrity. Requiring documents like a U.S. passport, or Certificate of Naturalization (N-550/N-570), or a REAL ID-compliant identification which indicates citizenship (Present day Real ID does not prove citizenship) is the only way to ensure only eligible citizens may vote. Implementing DPOC will help prevent fraud and safeguard us against those who wish to cheat the system. The EAC must act to close the current vulnerability.” – Joshua Johnson

-          “We used to do that also, here in the great United States of America, and we need to get back to doing that. Common sense is not so common anymore. Please let's get back to protecting the sovereignty of our nation!” – Bonnie Wallace

According to data, voting by noncitizens is very rare.

Opposition of National Organizations

National organizations opposing this petition include:

-          National Women’s Law Center – Its Comments include “The America First Legal Foundation petition (“the Petition”),2 which proposes to amend EAC regulations and the National Mail Voter Registration Form (“the Form”) to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, would hamper the ability of women, low-income people, people of color, and LGBTQI+ people to register to vote, denying them equal access to our democracy. While the petition purports to protect election security, there is no evidence that noncitizen voting is an issue that impacts the security of our elections and plenty of evidence that this policy change would disenfranchise voters. Indeed, millions of people would be denied equal access to voting, a right guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.” It also included “The proposed change to EAC regulations, rather than meaningfully protecting election security, would instead suppress millions of voters, primarily women, LGBTQI+ people, people of color, and low-income people.”

-          League of Women Voters – Its action alert includes “The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on a petition seeking to add documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to the federal voter registration form. Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections creates unnecessary barriers for many eligible voters. While it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote, asking citizens to provide additional documentation is an obstacle that could disproportionately affect vulnerable groups.”

Final Thoughts

DCNOW urges its community members and others to submit comments opposing the antidemocratic petition right away. Time is of the essence. Make your voices heard, and try to stop this voter suppression.