Kentucky Debates Laws to Bar Immigrant Citizens from Office

(KENTUCKY) — two bills filed this week in the kentucky general assembly would change who can run for many local and state offices by limiting eligibility to “natural-born” U.S. citizens, a move that would exclude many naturalized citizens and some dual citizens if enacted.

As of Friday, January 9, 2026, house bill 186 (filed Jan. 7, 2026) and House Bill 259 (filed Jan. 8, 2026) have been introduced and are moving through the legislative process. Neither bill is currently law. If passed and signed (HB 186), the restrictions would typically take effect on the bill’s stated effective date under Kentucky law. If approved as a constitutional amendment (HB 259), the change would take effect only after voter approval and any implementing steps described in the amendment.

Source documents

The bills are posted by the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission:

• Kentucky General Assembly record for HB 186 (26RS) at the legislature’s official site.
• Kentucky General Assembly record for HB 259 (26RS) at the legislature’s official site.

What HB 186 would do (local offices)

House Bill 186 would amend portions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, including KRS 67.060 and related provisions, to require that candidates for specified local offices be both:

1. “Natural-born citizens,” and
2. Nationals of only the United States — meaning no other nationality or citizenship.

The bill’s scope includes offices such as:

• Mayor
• City council
• County fiscal court
• Local school board
• Soil and water conservation district supervisor

HB 186 also adds a one-year residency requirement for some municipal races, including mayoral and city council contests.

What HB 259 would do (state constitutional amendment)

House Bill 259 proposes a Kentucky constitutional amendment that would bar non-natural-born citizens from holding a wide range of state-level offices. The list includes:

• Governor
• Lieutenant Governor
• Members of the General Assembly
• Attorney General
• Judicial positions, such as Kentucky Supreme Court Justice, among other statewide and judicial roles

Because HB 259 is a constitutional amendment proposal, it would require:

1. A three-fifths vote in both chambers of the legislature, and then
2. A statewide ballot vote by Kentucky voters.

The current plan described in the bill materials anticipates a november 2026 referendum.

Who would be affected

If enacted, the bills would primarily affect:

• Naturalized U.S. citizens, including long-time Kentucky residents who became citizens through INA naturalization procedures. Naturalization is governed by INA § 310 et seq. and related regulations at 8 C.F.R. parts 310–347.
• Dual citizens, depending on how “national(s) of only the United States” is interpreted and enforced under Kentucky election administration rules.
• Local governments and election administrators, who would need to revise candidate qualification procedures, forms, and challenge processes.
• Current officeholders who are naturalized citizens, if the legislation includes disqualification mechanisms or applies mid-term or at the next election cycle.

Notably, federal law generally treats naturalized citizens as citizens for many constitutional purposes, subject to narrow, office-specific “natural born” requirements in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution expressly imposes a “natural born Citizen” requirement for President (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1). States, however, sometimes attempt additional qualifications for state office; those efforts can raise federal constitutional questions.

Practical impact: what this could look like on the ground

• If HB 186 became law, a naturalized citizen who wants to run for city council could be ruled ineligible at filing, or face a post-filing challenge.
• If the “only the United States” nationality clause is enforced strictly, a U.S. citizen who retains another citizenship by birth may face exclusion even if fully eligible to vote.
• If HB 259 ultimately reached the ballot and passed, a naturalized citizen could be barred from running for state representative or serving as a statewide constitutional officer.
• Litigation could follow quickly, particularly if the measure affects current officeholders or candidates already campaigning.

Warning: These proposals may trigger federal constitutional litigation. Outcomes often depend on the wording of the final statute or amendment, and on the federal circuit’s precedent.

Legal context: likely constitutional fault lines

Challenges would likely focus on the Equal Protection Clause and related doctrines. Key legal points include:

• The Supreme Court has held that states generally cannot create discriminatory barriers to the political process without strong justification.
• In Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973), the Court struck down a broad ban on noncitizens in civil service roles, while recognizing a narrow “political function” exception for certain positions.
• Naturalized citizens stand on different footing than noncitizens, which could increase scrutiny of “two-tier” citizenship concepts.
• Kentucky’s “dual nationality” restriction raises practical questions: many countries confer citizenship by descent automatically, some U.S. citizens cannot easily renounce foreign citizenship, or may not even know they have it. That could create disputed facts in eligibility challenges.

Federal immigration and citizenship backdrop

These state proposals arrive amid increased federal emphasis on naturalization screening and post-naturalization review. USCIS has publicly discussed “integrity” initiatives in the naturalization process, including in USCIS newsroom materials (see USCIS citizenship and naturalization information).

However, state ballot access and office qualifications are not administered by USCIS. They are handled by state and local election authorities, and reviewed in state and federal courts when challenged.

Warning: Nothing in HB 186 or HB 259 changes federal citizenship status. But state eligibility disputes may require proof of citizenship history, which can become evidence-intensive.

Appeals, challenges, and transition rules

As of today, there are no reported court rulings on HB 186 or HB 259 because they are newly filed bills. If enacted, legal challenges could seek injunctions before candidate filing deadlines.

Transition rules will matter. The key question is whether the measures apply to:

• Current officeholders mid-term,
• Candidates already filed, or
• Only future election cycles.

Those details typically appear in the final enrolled bill, effective-date clauses, and election guidance.

Deadline to watch: HB 259’s timeline is tied to the November 2026 ballot if it clears the legislature. Candidate filing deadlines in 2026 could become litigation flashpoints.

Recommended actions (and when)

• Candidates and current officeholders who are naturalized or dual citizens should consult Kentucky election counsel and an immigration attorney before filing, fundraising, or responding to eligibility challenges.
• Keep records ready: proof of U.S. citizenship (naturalization certificate, passport history) and any documentation about dual nationality status.
• Advocacy groups and local governments should monitor committee actions and request clarifying guidance from election administrators if either bill advances.

Legal resources (official and professional)

• Kentucky bill texts and status: Kentucky General Assembly record for HB 186
• EOIR and immigration court info (general): EOIR and immigration court info – USCIS citizenship and naturalization information: USCIS citizenship and naturalization information – AILA Lawyer Referral: [AILA Lawyer Referral]( – Immigration Advocates Network:

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.