It is bad enough that the Proof of Citizenship Initiative will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of legal voters, and violate the privacy rights of more than a million legal Washington voters – all while making our election system less secure. But it also violates at least two federal election laws and therefore is certain to be tossed out in federal court should it make it past the voters. Yet, despite the fact that we have discussed specific federal laws and court rulings against a nearly identical “Real ID” Voter ID Initiative, on August 8 2025, proponents of the Initiative had the audacity to falsely claim that Initiative IL26-126 “aligns with federal election law and federal court rulings.” We will therefore, in this article, provide a comprehensive update on the many legal problems of IL26-126. This includes five Federal Court rulings that found state attempts to over-rule federal voting rights laws are illegal and two recent federal court rulings against using Real ID to remove legal voters from the voting rolls. That is seven federal court rulings against the provisions of IL26-126 and not a single federal court ruling in favor of the Real ID provisions of IL26-126.
Similar Proof of Citizenship laws in many other states have been ruled to be illegal
Between 2009 and March 2025, at least nine states passed laws specifically addressing proof of citizenship. Most are not in force due to court decisions. These laws do not all take the same approach. Some are clear that people already on the rolls are assumed to be citizens; a few ask the voter to provide proof at the time of registration; and most direct state officials – not the citizens - to verify citizenship, which means checking other data sources. Here is a link to a summary of all of these state voter ID laws.
Laws requiring new registrants to show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote:
Alabama (Ala. Code § 31-13-28)
Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166)
Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-2309) (Not in force due to court decision)
Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. § 18:104)
New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:7; § 654:12) (Note: proof of citizenship is only required for new voters. Voters who are already registered do not need to provide proof of citizenship.)
Laws requiring all registrants to show documentary proof of citizenship, but only if status cannot be verified using other data:
Georgia (Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-216)
Indiana (Ind. Code § 3-7-33-4.7; § 3-7-38.2-7.3)
Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141)
Laws requiring new registrants and those updating their voter registration to show documentary proof of citizenship:
Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. § 22-3-102 effective July 1, 2025)
In short, only one or two states have enacted laws demanding existing voters to provide proof of citizenship. These state laws are new and are likely to be voided in coming court challenges.
Arizona attempts to require proof of citizenship
Arizona began attempting to require proof of citizenship decades ago. In 2004, citizens approved a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 200, requiring evidence of citizenship for voter registration. Arizona's processes have been repeatedly challenged in courts over the past two decades. A description of Arizona's current process can be found here, and a list of what is accepted documentary proof of citizenship can be found here. In brief, a person who submits valid proof of citizenship when registering, or whose citizenship can be confirmed using data from the Department of Motor Vehicles, is registered to vote in all federal state and local elections. For new registrants who use the federal form to register and have not otherwise shown proof of citizenship, Arizona provides them with a ballot of "federal only" races. In other words, Arizona maintains a bifurcated voting system.
Arizona has one list of voters who can vote on all races, and a much smaller list of "federal only" voters who have registered on the federal form and have not yet shown documentation of citizenship. Being on the "federal only" list does not mean these voters are not US citizens; it means they have not yet shown documentary proof of their citizenship. Keeping two lists, and ensuring that a voter receives the right ballot, is a major challenge that requires having staffing to implement it. A different ballot is prepared for "federal only" voters in each of Arizona's nine congressional districts.
Five Federal Court rulings that found state attempts to over-rule federal voting rights laws are illegal
#1 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court (2013)
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Arizona law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote violated the National Voter Registration Act.
The court held that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to accept a federal voter registration form, which asks registrants to affirm their citizenship, but does not require documentary proof of citizenship. Also, the NVRA allows states to develop their own registration forms for state and federal elections, but the federal form by itself must always suffice to register a voter to vote in federal elections.
Finally, states must accept the federal voter registration form without requiring registrants to submit any information beyond what the form (and any approved state-specific instructions) requires.
#2 Fish v. Kobach, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2016)
In this case, a federal court held that a Kansas law requiring individuals to submit documentary proof of citizenship when using a federal voter registration form violated the NVRA. The court held that the NVRA requires states to make a version of a federal voter registration form available during the driver’s license application process. The NVRA says that the form provided with a driver’s license application must require “only the minimum amount of information necessary to” enable the state to determine a voter’s eligibility. The NVRA already required registrants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on the federal form. This met the “minimum amount of information” requirement and the court ruled that Kansas’s law requiring additional documentary proof of citizenship went too far.
#3 League of Women Voters v. Harrington, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2021)
In this case, a federal district court struck down the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s decision to include state-specific instructions requiring documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms for Alabama, Georgia and Kansas. When the lawsuit began in 2016, all three states had documentary proof of citizenship laws on the books, though the court noted that it was unclear whether Alabama and Georgia were actively enforcing their citizenship laws.
In its final opinion, the court held that the NVRA requires the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission to determine whether a state-specific instruction on the federal form is necessary to enable the state to assess voter eligibility. The EAC’s decisions violated the NVRA because the agency failed to determine whether the Alabama, Georgia and Kansas proof of citizenship instructions were necessary to confirm voter eligibility. The EAC’s decisions violated the Administrative Procedures Act because the agency did not follow the proper decision-making process.
#4 New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan, Coalition for Open Democracy v. Scanlan, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (2024 – ongoing)
These lawsuits challenge a New Hampshire law requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. As of March 2025, there is no court ruling on these cases yet. Both lawsuits argue that New Hampshire’s 2024 law places an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Both lawsuits argue that this undue burden comes in part from the fact that New Hampshire removed the option to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, instead requiring all voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. The Coalition for Open Democracy argues that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.
#5 Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (2025)
In this case, several organizations and government entities filed challenges to multiple Arizona laws. In February 2025, a federal appeals court held that several of the challenged laws ran afoul of the NVRA, the federal Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution. The Ninth Circuit 156 page opinion can be found here. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1390971/dl
The court made the following rulings on Arizona’s proof of citizenship laws:
Arizona’s law requiring individuals who register to vote with the federal form to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to vote by mail or vote for president violated the NVRA and Arizona’s law requiring state voter registration forms to be rejected if the voter does not provide documentary proof of citizenship violated an agreement from a previous court case that directs Arizona to register such voters as federal-only voters.
2025 United States v Paxton
On August 4, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an 11 page ruling upholding Texas’s Election Protection and Integrity Act (S.B. 1).
The law requires mail-in voters to include a matching driver’s license or Social Security number on both their mail in ballot application and their ballot envelope. It is important to understand that this new Texas law does not take any legal voters off the voter rolls. Nor does Texas require a Real ID license to be able to register to vote. Instead, Texas like Washington currently follows federal law in only requiring an Oath of Citizenship in order to register to vote – and Texas like Washington has two different Drivers Licenses – a normal Drivers License and an Enhanced Real ID License. The new law allows a person to use their normal Drivers License in order to obtain and turn in a mail in ballot. Thus, the new law does not violate either of the two federal voting laws that are violated by the Washington Proof of Citizenship Initiative. Instead, it is a common sense measure designed to address some of the huge security problems of mail-in voting – something we should all strongly support.
Here are quotes from the Texas three judge federal court panel:
“Courts have repeatedly found that mail-in ballots are particularly susceptible to fraud.”
“The (Drivers License) ID number is obviously designed to confirm that each mail in ballot voter is precisely who he claims he is.”
“The voter registration application asks each applicant to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are eligible to vote. Additionally, since 2004, in response to the Help American Vote Act, Texas requires each applicant to provide an Identification Number – preferably a Texas Drivers License number or Personal Identification Number… referred to as a DPS number See 52 USC Section 21083 (a) (1) (A) (“each State… shall implement… a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list… that… assigns a unique identifier to each legally registered voter in the State. If the applicant does not have a DPS number, they can provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number. “
NOTE: This is one of the federal laws that Washington State Department of Licensing officials are violating when they issue drivers licenses to citizens and non-citizens with these unique ID numbers. What we should do is force Bob Ferguson and the Washington DOL to comply with this federal law rather than attempting to remove legal voters from the voter rolls.
2025 Trump Real ID Mandate Presidential Order
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, also called Voter Roll Integrity and Citizenship Verification.
Here are quotes from this Presidential Order:
“Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611, prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections. Yet States fail adequately to vet voters’ citizenship... Federal laws, such as the National Voter Registration Act (Public Law 103-31) and the Help America Vote Act (Public Law 107-252), require States to maintain an accurate and current Statewide list of every legally registered voter in the State… It is the policy of my Administration to enforce Federal law and to protect the integrity of our election process.”
“Sec. 2. Enforcing the Citizenship Requirement for Federal Elections.
To enforce the Federal prohibition on foreign nationals voting in 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:
(A) documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3); and
(B) a State or local official to record on the form the type of document that the applicant presented as documentary proof of US citizenship, including the date of the document's issuance, the date of the document's expiration (if any), the office that issued the document, and any unique identification number associated with the document as required by 52 U.S.C. 21083(a)(5)(A), while taking appropriate measures to ensure information security.
2(a)(ii) "documentary proof of US citizenship" shall include a copy of:
(A) a United States passport;
(B) an identification document compliant with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States;
(C) an official military identification card; or
(D) a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen.”
Several groups filed federal complaints against this REAL ID Presidential Order
There are several online databases that are keeping track of these federal lawsuits against Executive Order 14248, also called Voter Roll Integrity and Citizenship Verification, and what we call the Real ID Mandate Presidential Order. One of the best is at this link: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
Search for Executive Orders: Election Law. Here you will find five complaints against this Presidential Order including the Washington complaint in the Ninth Circuit and the League of Women Voters complaint in the DC Circuit.
The first three cases above were consolidated into a single case by the DC federal court. On April 24, 2025, the judge in this case issued a ruling blocking the Trump Real ID Mandate Presidential Order. The California v Trump case was filed in the Massachusetts federal court where the judge also ruled against the Trump Real ID Mandate Presidential Order on June 13 2025. The Washington federal court in Seattle is likely to make the same ruling against the Trump Presidential order in the next few weeks. Note that not a single federal judge has ruled in favor of the Trump Order.
The green plus sign provides a summary of each case but does not include links to the actual court rulings. There is another column (not shown) that provides the dates of the latest rulings in each case.
The latest ruling was on June 13, 2025 in the case of California v Trump. To see the actual court rulings, there is another online database that lists all of the court rulings by date. First, change the page number from 1 to 2. Then scroll down the list to June 13, 2025. Then click on the case to bring up this link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69841778/state-of-california-v-trump/
This link has the entire case file for this case. Scroll down to file 107 to download the 44 page court ruling for this case. Here is the direct link:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282905/gov.uscourts.mad.282905.107.0.pdf
June 13 2025 California v Trump
The federal judge in this case issued a preliminary injunction that reaffirmed the DC Circuit block on the Trump administration’s ability to require Real ID to vote. Here are quotes from this ruling:
“There is no dispute that US citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship. 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. “
“The Elections Clause empowers Congress to “make or alter” state election laws. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. “In practice, the Clause functions as ‘a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to pre-empt state legislative choices.’”
“The National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”)… in 1993, Congress, recognizing that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right,” enacted the NVRA to “establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” make it possible for federal, state and local governments to implement its provisions to enhance voter participation by eligible citizens, “protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure that accurate an current voter registration rolls are maintained… “
“The “NVRA’s primary emphasis is on simplifying the methods for registering to vote in federal elections…. the NVRA requires states to establish procedures to allow voters to register by mail, in tandem with a driver’s license application or at designated voter registration agencies.”
“In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”), which created the EAC, a multi-member, bipartisan, “independent entity” and transferred responsibility for the Federal Form to this body.”
In plain English, the federal judge ruled that the Trump Real ID Mandate Presidential Order violated both federal election laws - NVFA and HAVA.
Three other complaints against the Trump Election Integrity Order were consolidated in 2025 League of Women Voters v Trump
Here is a link to the case file for this case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69823792/league-of-united-latin-american-citizens-v-executive-office-of-the/
On April 24, 2025, a federal judge issued a 120 page ruling which can be downloaded from this link:
The ruling stated that Congress made two laws that regulate what states can and can not do. The Trump Real ID Mandate Presidential Order violated these two laws. Only Congress has the power to change laws passed by Congress. Here are quotes from this ruling:
“In 1993, Congress exercised its Elections Clause authority to regulate federal elections by enacting the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”). Congress’s stated purposes in enacting the NVRA included “establishing procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” helping officials at all levels of government implement the Act’s requirements “in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office,” “protecting the integrity of the electoral process,” and ensuring the maintenance of “accurate and correct voter registration rolls.”
“The NVRA established a baseline set of voter registration procedures for federal elections that every State must implement, alongside “any other method of voter registration provided for under State law.”
For example, the NVRA requires that States allow people to apply for voter registration when applying for drivers’ licenses. The NVRA also requires each State to “accept and use” a standard federal “mail voter registration form” (the “Federal Form”)… the application must verify an applicant’s eligibility under state law through an “attestation that the applicant meets each such requirements” that “requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.”. The Form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.”
“Moreover, when enacting the NVRA, Congress considered and rejected a proposal that would have allowed States to impose exactly the kind of documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement that the President’s Executive Order now directs the EAC to adopt, concluding that such a requirement was “not necessary or consistent with the purposes of [the] Act.” In short, the instruction in Section 2(a) “is incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
On July 11, 2025, the League of Women Voters filed a 52 page Motion for Summary Judgment which you can read at this link:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279032/gov.uscourts.dcd.279032.145.1_1.pdf
Here are quotes from their motion:
“Congress considered and rejected a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement in connection with the Federal Form. In 1993, while Congress considered the NVRA’s passage, members raised concerns about noncitizens using the Federal Form to register to vote. However, the Senate report specifically notes that Congress found that the NVRA “provides sufficient safeguards to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote.” S. Rep. No. 103-6, at 9 (1993).”
“Congress reached this conclusion because the NVRA requires that “every application for voter registration must include a statement [setting forth the citizenship requirement] and requires that the applicant sign an attestation clause, under penalty of perjury.”
“When the NVRA reached conference, Congress specifically rejected a proposed amendment that would have allowed States to require documentary proof of citizenship. H.R. Rep. No. 103-66 (1993) (Conf. Rep.). The Conference Report found that the amendment was “not necessary or consistent with the purpose of this Act.”. It emphasized that the proposed amendment would “effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere, with the mail registration program of the Act.”
“The FEC explained that “while U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite for voting in every state . . . the issue of U.S. citizenship is addressed within the oath required by the Act and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury.”
“Over 60% of foreign-born Asian Americans are naturalized citizens, including those who naturalize alongside their parents while children; for many, obtaining a naturalization certificate is a costly and lengthy process—upwards of $500 and over five and a half months to obtain.” https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/
“Millions of Americans do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name many (including disproportionate numbers of Black and Brown citizens) lack one altogether.” https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2580&context=akronlawreview
“The Supreme Court has recognized that plaintiffs have the “ability to sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327 (2015).”
State of Washington v Donald Trump
Separately, on April 4, 2025, Washington AG Nick Brown filed a 45 page complaint in the Ninth Circuit against the Trump Executive Order. The Washington AG issued a Press Release that - while being a summary of their objections to the Trump Executive Order - can also provide a summary to how they will object to the Voter ID Initiative in 2026.
Here are quotes from the Washington AG Press Release:
“This illegal executive order “harms States by purporting to override our sovereign laws governing the counting of votes and voter registration, imposing substantial costs on States to change state voting system and laws, and disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of State residents...The executive order also violates the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act by unfairly making it harder to vote.”
“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters... The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right… The order’s illegal and burdensome proof of citizenship requirements will disenfranchise voters. About 9 percent of U.S. citizens of voting age do not have such documents readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice.”
Here is a link to the Washington AG 45 page complaint:
Here are quotes from the 45 page complaint:
“The Election Interference Order violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including the Elections Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, which gives States primary authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. It also violates multiple federal statutes, including the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 (1993), Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002), and the Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, Pub. Law 99-410, 100 Stat. 924 (1986)”
“Congress enacted the NVRA based on its findings that “(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right; (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(a)....allowing States to require documentary proof of citizenship was “not necessary or consistent with the purposes of this Act” and “could be interpreted by States to permit registration requirements that could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the Act’s mail registration program.”
“The Federal Form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” Id. § 20508(b)(3)… Applicants must sign the attestation under penalty of perjury and are informed that a person providing false information “may be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”
“Plaintiff States’ Laws Also Ensure that Elections are Secure Against Participation by Nonqualified Persons.”
“U.S. citizens who reside in Washington, as well as eligible service and overseas voters, can complete and submit the Washington State Form online, complete and return a paper copy, or be automatically registered to vote as part of a transaction in which a state agency confirms the person’s citizenship. E.g., Wash. Rev. Code §§ 29A.08.120, .123, .315.
“Only U.S. citizens may register to vote in Washington and Oregon. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 29A.08.010(1)(f), .123(2); Or. Const. art. II, § 2. “
“Voter registration applicants must affirmatively indicate that they are U.S. citizens. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 29A.08.123, .210, .315; Or. Rev. Stat. § 247.125(2)(a). “
“Applicants must sign an oath declaring that “I am a citizen of the United States.” Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.230. Knowingly providing false information on a voter registration form is a class C felony punishable by up five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.”
“Before a person is registered to vote, Washington election officials must confirm the person’s identity. Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.107; see also 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(5)(A). This is done by comparing the applicant’s driver’s license number, state identification card number, or the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number to information maintained by the Washington Department of Licensing. Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.107.”
“Washington law requires that state and county election officials regularly review the statewide voter registration database to identify persons who are not eligible to vote… Wash. Rev. Code §§ 29A.08.125, .510, .520(2), .610, .620. “
“Washington residents may obtain a standard driver’s license or identicard (a state-issued identification card) without providing proof of citizenship. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.035. “
How the Proof of Citizenship Initiative violates two federal laws
The Washington Proof of Citizenship Initiative clearly violates NVRA
The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA) can be found here:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title52/subtitle2/chapter205&edition=prelim
The NVRA was enacted "to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office" while "ensuring that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(l), (4)…
Section 20507 of the NVRA addresses state voter list maintenance procedures for elections for federal office, prescribing specific conditions under which registrants may be removed from voter registration lists. Sections (a)(3) and (a)(4) prohibit states from removing a person from the voter registration rolls for elections for Federal office except:
#1 At the request of the registrant,
#2 By reason of criminal conviction (as provided by State law),
#3 By reason of mental incapacity (as provided by State law),
#4 By reason of the death of the registrant, or
#5 By reason of a change in residence.
A PERSON CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THE VOTER ROLLS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ENHANCED DRIVERS LICENSE!
Even without all of the federal court rulings, it is obvious that no voter in Washington can be removed from the voter rolls because they do not have an enhanced Drivers License. They can only be removed when they ask to be removed, when they commit a crime, when they have a mental problem, when they move or when they die. There are no other exceptions.
The Washington Proof of Citizenship Initiative also violates HAVA
The Help America Vote Act HAVA) provides federal funds in return for complying with federal election laws. Here is a link to this 65 page federal voting rights law passed in 2002.
The purpose of HAVA is to improve our country’s election system. States are obligated to maintain accurate voter lists and thereby minimize the opportunities for and the incidence of fraud. Under Section 303(a) of HAVA, a voter registration application for an election for federal office may not be accepted or processed by the State unless it includes a driver’s license number from the applicant, or if the applicant does not have a driver’s license, the last four digits of the applicant’s social security number.
If an applicant has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license or social security number, the State must assign a special identifying number for voter registration. See 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(5)(A). Section 303(a)’s requirement that States utilize a unique identifying number to voters who indicate they have neither a driver’s license nor a social security number is an integral part of the minimum Federal standard.
The problem is that Washington state law allows the Washington State Department of Licensing to violate HAVA. When a person from another country comes into the Washington State Department of Licensing, they obviously do not have a Washington Drivers License. In addition, they likely do not have a US Social Security card. Despite these facts, they are allowed to check a box to be registered to vote and they are registered to vote and given a Washington Drivers License without any special identifying number. This is a clear violation of HAVA.
Thus, the real underlying problem is with the Washington State Department of Licensing. The Washington State Department of Licensing automatically gives Voter Registrations like cotton candy to anyone who applies for a Washington state drivers license. The second problem is with the State voter list required by HAVA. A person who did not have a Washington Drivers License or Social Security number should not have been put on that list without a special identifying number. The accurate state voter list is the responsibility of the Washington Secretary of State. Thus, Steve Hobbs is also is guilty of failing to comply with federal election laws.
It is the DMV fault that an unknown number of non-citizens have been illegally registered without a special ID number and thus are illegally able to vote in Washington. The solution to this problem is not to impose additional requirements on existing Washington voters. Rather it is for the federal government aka the Department of Justice to come out to Washington State and force Washington to comply with these two federal voting laws. Other states are also violating this HAVA requirement. Pam Bondi has already sent warning letters to North Carolina, Minnesota, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, California and Arizona. Here is a link to the Minnesota letter dated June 25, 2025: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/State-of-Minnesota.pdf
Here is a quote from the May 2025 DOJ HAVA complaint filed against North Carolina:
“a significant number of North Carolina voters who did not provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number using that voter registration form were nonetheless registered by their election officials, in violation of HAVA Section 303(a)...Per Federal Law: Section 401 of HAVA assigns enforcement responsibilities to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. This section plays a critical role in ensuring that states adhere to federal laws and standards for election administration, including voter registration, voting systems, and provisional voting.”
NVRA requires that states maintain "clean and accurate" voter registration records. This includes the duty of each state to remove the names of voters who have died or changed their residency to another state. States are allowed to mail out Confirmation letters asking folks if they are dead or if they have moved. And all that it takes to stay on the voting rolls is to reply to the Confirmation letter that you are still alive and you have not moved. But many states, including Washington state, have failed to send out confirmation letters and failed to maintain accurate voter rolls and now the Department of Justice is going after them.
Why the Washington Voter ID Initiative violates HAVA
Regardless of whether the federal government is able to force states into cleaning up their voters rolls, as required by federal law, the Washington Voter ID Initiative also violates HAVA because HAVA does not require either finding your original birth certificate or getting a passport or getting an enhanced drivers license in order to register to vote.
An attempt to impose Real ID in Pennsylvania ruled against the Pennsylvania State Constitution
Washington state has one of the lowest “Real ID” compliance rates in the nation (73% non-compliant). Another state where the citizens has refused to go along with Real ID is Pennsylvania – also with a 73% non-compliance rate. In March 2012, the Pennsylvania Assembly passed a Voter ID law requiring that everyone in Pennsylvania “re-register” with “Real ID” proof of citizenship. This law, which was similar to Washington Initiative IL26-126, was challenged in Pennsylvania state court by the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, the Homeless Advocacy Project and a number of voters in a case called Applewhite v Pennsylvania.
After nearly two years of litigation, including a ruling against the law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on January 17, 2014, a Pennsylvania judge ruled the Pennsylvania voter ID law violated the Pennsylvania state constitution by “imposing unreasonable burdens on the right to vote” and threatened a fundamental right of hundreds of thousands of qualified voters. This ruling is significant because the Pennsylvania State Constitution election provisions are nearly identical to the Washington State Constitution election provisions. Here is a link to the 103 page ruling:
https://pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Voter-ID-Final-Order.pdf
The Pennsylvania State Constitution Article 1, Section 5 states that “Elections must be free and equal and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”
Compare this to Article 1, Section 19 of the Washington state constitution which states: “All Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”
Here are quotes from the Pennsylvania ruling:
"Our voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal… There is overwhelming evidence that hundreds of thousands of qualified voters lack acceptable documentation.”
“The Voter ID Law contemplates that the primary form of photo identification to be used by voters is a Department of Transportation (PennDOT) driver’s license or the non-driver equivalent. Furthermore, the Law specifically requires that – notwithstanding provisions of Section 1510(b) relating to the issuance and content of the cards – PennDOT shall issue them at no cost.”
“The process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal (or a document considered to be an equivalent), a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency.”
“The reason why PennDOT will not implement the Law as written is that the Section 1510(b) driver’s license equivalent is a secure form of identification, (called Real ID), which may be used, for example, to board commercial aircraft. Some registered voters have been and will be unable to comply with the requirements maintained by PennDOT to obtain an identification card under Section 1510(b)…. (testimony from a deputy secretary for PennDOT that “at the end of the day there will be people who will not be able to qualify for a driver’s license or a PennDOT ID card”).”
“While there is a debate over the number of affected voters, given the substantial overlap between voter rolls and PennDOT’s existing ID driver/cardholder database, it is readily understood that a minority of the population is affected by the access issue. Nevertheless, there is little disagreement with Appellants’ observation that the population involved includes members of some of the most vulnerable segments of our society (the elderly, disabled members of our community, and the financially disadvantaged).”
“The irreparable harm is of constitutional magnitude — the disenfranchisement of a substantial number of eligible, qualified, registered voters, many of whom have been proudly voting for decades — was likely to occur… Many thousands – indeed, ultimately uncountable numbers – of otherwise qualified electors will lack a Photo ID for purposes of the upcoming election, and hence will be disenfranchised.”
“The General Assembly clearly failed to sufficiently consider the burdens and impediments that the law’s requirements would place upon “the most vulnerable segments of our society.”
“Dr. Siskin used two databases to “determine how many people who were registered voters in Pennsylvania would not have a valid photo ID of those three types. His analysis yielded 511,415 voters… The over half million figure is likely understated. … Respondent (state) rebuttal expert proffered approximately 430,000 registered electors remain without compliant photo ID…. Dr. Marker concluded “the vast majority of voters who lack a PennDOT ID also lack another form of acceptable ID.”
“This Court considered Dr. Oyler’s conservative estimate… that between 4% to 5% of registered electors, roughly 320,000 – 400,000 lack the requisite ID. “
“The overwhelming evidence reflects that there are hundreds of thousands of qualified voters who lack compliant ID… Specifically DOS 2012 Database Match showed approximately 759,000 registered electors did not have a PennDOT Secure ID (representing 9% of all registered electors). “
Because the Washington state constitution has several provisions that are nearly identical to provisions in the Pennsylvania state constitution, it is likely that Initiative IL26-126 violates the Washington state constitution in addition to violating two federal election laws – as well as possibly the 14th and 15th Amendments of the US Constitution.
What’s Next?
So far, we have explained why the Proof of Citizenship Initiative disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of legal voters, makes our elections less secure and violates several federal laws. The good news is that there are other options that reduce the risk of non-citizens voting while still protecting the rights of all legal voters. In the next article, we will review some of these less intrusive and more secure options.