Indiana Voting Rights Advocates Sue Over Unnecessary Citizenship Proof

(INDIANA, UNITED STATES) Indiana voting rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on October 21, 2025, challenging two new Indiana laws that require certain voters to show documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to register or remain registered. The case targets HEA 1264 (2024) and HEA 1680 (2025), which both took effect July 1, 2025. Plaintiffs say the laws are unnecessary, unfair to naturalized and derived citizens, and conflict with federal protections. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and is pending.

The plaintiffs include the League of Women Voters of Indiana, Common Cause Indiana, Hoosier Asian American Power, and Exodus Refugee Immigration. They are represented by the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Bowman Legal Services. The defendants are Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales and the co-directors of the Indiana Election Division.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case could shape how states use administrative data to police voter rolls and how courts weigh burdens on naturalized citizens’ voting rights. State officials defend the rules as election security measures that protect the “sanctity of the ballot.” Secretary Morales has publicly supported the laws while also noting there is little evidence of noncitizen voting in Indiana. Plaintiffs argue that if there is no widespread problem, the new hurdles serve no purpose except to deter eligible voters.

Policy details

Under HEA 1264 (2024):
– The Indiana Election Division must cross-check the voter registration list against Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) records to find people who were once issued temporary ID numbers as noncitizens.
– Anyone flagged by that cross-check must provide documentary proof of citizenship—for example, a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. passport, or naturalization certificate—within 30 days, or risk removal from the voter rolls.
– The law took effect July 1, 2025.

Under HEA 1680 (2025):
– The same DPOC requirement applies to new registrants who provide temporary ID numbers.
– This expansion also took effect July 1, 2025.

Together, plaintiffs say, the two measures create a “two-tiered” system: people who were once noncitizens must clear extra hurdles, while U.S.-born citizens face none.

Concerns about data and practical effects

• Advocates warn the approach relies on outdated or error-prone administrative data.
• Many immigrants become U.S. citizens but retain BMV credentials or records that still reflect an old status.
• The cross-check can mislabel naturalized or derived citizens as potential noncitizens.
• If a flagged voter cannot gather documents within 30 days, they risk removal from the rolls even though they are eligible.

Legal arguments

The lawsuit contends the laws violate:
– The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) — by imposing non-uniform standards and procedures.
– The Civil Rights Act of 1964 — by creating discriminatory effects against certain classes of voters.

Plaintiffs also argue:
– The 30-day window is too short, especially for naturalized and derived citizens who may need extra time to locate or request documents.
– The cross-check relies on unreliable data and can cause eligible voters to be wrongly flagged.

Lawsuit and potential impact

The central legal question is whether Indiana can force a subset of already-registered, eligible voters to prove citizenship again—years after the state accepted their registration—based on a cross-check that may reflect out-of-date BMV information.

Plaintiffs seek:
1. A court order blocking enforcement of HEA 1264 and HEA 1680.
2. A declaration that the laws are unlawful.
3. Public records about program implementation, including:
– Lists of voters flagged,
– Notices sent to flagged voters,
– Standards used to review DPOC submissions.

Until the court rules otherwise, the laws remain in effect.

Practical stakes for voters

• If the BMV cross-check flags you, you must submit DPOC within 30 days to avoid removal.
• Acceptable DPOC includes:
  • U.S. birth certificate
  • U.S. passport
  • Naturalization document
• Naturalized citizens face the highest risk because:
  • They may rely on older records,
  • They may have difficulty locating or replacing key documents quickly.

“If there is no underlying problem, the DPOC step is more likely to kick eligible voters off the rolls than to catch wrongdoing.” — Plaintiffs’ argument as summarized in filings

Administrative burdens and equal-application concerns

• Counties and election offices must:
  • Send notices,
  • Track 30-day windows,
  • Process incoming DPOC,
  • Handle challenges and follow-up.
• Civil rights lawyers warn that uneven application—lost mail, clerical mistakes, or inconsistent standards—could create non-uniform rules, which the NVRA forbids.
• Replacement of documents (e.g., a naturalization certificate) can take time, making the 30-day deadline particularly constraining.

Broader context

• The case aligns with a broader national push by some lawmakers to require DPOC at registration.
• Several Republican-led states have advanced similar measures.
• At the federal level, backers of the proposed SAVE Act (H.R. 22, 2025) have pushed for DPOC for federal elections nationwide.
• Plaintiffs caution that database errors can cascade and fixed deadlines can remove eligible voters who simply need more time to gather records.

Guidance for voters and advocates

Practical steps recommended by advocates:
– Act quickly if you receive a DPOC notice.
– Keep copies of every document you submit.
– Use secure delivery methods when possible.
– Naturalized citizens should consider storing a digital scan of a naturalization certificate, passport, or other DPOC for rapid response.
– Community groups are preparing voter education efforts focused on new citizens.

Indiana officials say they will defend the laws in court while framing them as election security measures. Voters seeking official updates can visit the Indiana Secretary of State Elections Division for contact information and general election guidance: https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/

Key takeaways

• There is no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting in Indiana, according to filings and public statements cited by plaintiffs.
• The state’s chosen enforcement tool—administrative cross-checks tied to temporary ID numbers—can mislabel new citizens.
• Whether federal law permits the trade-offs (potential removals versus asserted election security) will be decided by the court.
• For now, voters flagged by the BMV cross-check must provide DPOC within 30 days to remain on the rolls, and the legal battle over how Indiana treats naturalized Americans is ongoing.