WA Activist Pushes Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law for 2027

(WASHINGTON STATE) Political activist Scott Presler is pushing a new state initiative that would require every person to show proof of United States citizenship before being added to the voter registration rolls, setting up a heated fight over election rules, immigration status, and ballot access ahead of the 2027 General Election in Washington state.

The proposal, filed as Initiative IL26‑126, would force voters to provide documents such as a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or enhanced driver’s license, and would cancel the registration of anyone who fails to supply proof within 14 days of the 2027 deadline.

How Washington’s current system works

Under current law, Washington voters are not asked to submit such papers. Instead:

• Voters attest under penalty of perjury on the voter registration form that they are United States citizens.
• They provide a state driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
• Election officials do not check citizenship beyond that sworn statement. This is partly because state law prevents them from doing so and because there is no official citizenship list to verify every registration or the existing voter file.

What IL26‑126 would change

Presler and his supporters argue the change is necessary to prevent abuse of the vote‑by‑mail system. The initiative would:

• Require county auditors to check voter rolls and flag registrations without proof of citizenship.
• Give flagged registrants 14 days (per above) to provide acceptable documentation in person.
• Cancel registrations for anyone who does not supply proof within the required period.
• Allow proof to be supplied at registration or within a set period afterward.

Acceptable documents listed in the initiative include:

County auditors would be instructed to audit the rolls, send notices to those lacking documentation, and demand an in‑person visit with documents before allowing people to remain registered.

Supporters’ rationale

Supporters say the measure would:

• Close what they describe as a gap in the system.
• Bring Washington closer to federal rules and court rulings that emphasize only citizens may vote in federal, state, and local elections.
• Align state rules with what they call common‑sense requirements similar to those used when immigrants apply for citizenship or passports.

The initiative is also part of a broader movement: in 2025, allies in Congress introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), which would require documentary proof of citizenship for federal election registration. Presler’s initiative mirrors that idea at the state level.

Opponents’ concerns

Opposition comes from Washington State Democrats, civic groups such as the League of Women Voters of Washington, and immigrant advocates. Their concerns include:

• The plan could remove thousands of eligible citizens from the rolls, particularly:
  • Naturalized citizens
  • Older voters
  • Rural residents
  • Low‑income communities
• Many naturalized citizens received a certificate of naturalization from Certificate of naturalization years ago and may have misplaced it or stored it away.
• Forcing people to dig up rare documents may scare eligible voters away from the polls.
• Concerns about whether county auditors are prepared to handle sensitive personal information contained in federal immigration records while protecting privacy and avoiding discrimination.
• Years of election data show proven voter fraud in Washington is extremely rare, and critics say the proposal uses fear of non‑citizen voting without evidence.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, similar proposals in other states have often ended up in court, with judges balancing election‑security arguments against the risk of blocking lawful voters.

Path to the ballot and timeline

The initiative faces a challenging procedural path before voters see it:

• Backers must collect about 309,000 valid signatures from registered voters by January 2, 2026.
  • This number is intentionally high to provide a cushion for signatures that might later be ruled invalid.
• If they meet the signature threshold, the Washington Legislature in Olympia would have the option to:
  1. Pass the measure directly,
  2. Amend it, or
  3. Send it to the people for a statewide vote.
• IL26‑126’s text specifies that the proof‑of‑citizenship rules would be in place before the 2027 General Election, and officials would begin canceling registrations for noncompliance.

Practical implications and community impact

• Naturalized citizens may need to locate and present original certificates of naturalization, which some received long ago and may have misplaced.
• Advocates worry about the administrative burden on county auditors and whether the system could create barriers to participation.
• The debate highlights a tension between election security and access to the ballot, particularly in a vote‑by‑mail state like Washington.

“For Green Card holders who hope to become citizens, the debate is a reminder that the path from immigration paperwork to civic life runs through battles over voter registration rules and proof of citizenship laws.”

Organizing and campaigning

Presler has begun traveling across Washington to build support, holding events to recruit volunteers and collect signatures. He plans to return after Thanksgiving 2025 if the initial effort goes well, aiming to keep the issue in the news through 2026.

His activity has energized both sides:

• Supporters who feel the current system is too loose have been mobilized.
• Opponents are organizing to challenge IL26‑126 legally and politically if it qualifies.

Both sides expect contentious fights over how states tie ballot access to immigration‑related paperwork.

Key takeaways

• IL26‑126 would impose documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration in Washington, a major change from current practice.
• The initiative requires collecting ~309,000 valid signatures by January 2, 2026 to qualify for legislative consideration or the ballot.
• Supporters claim it will secure elections; opponents warn it risks disenfranchising lawful voters, especially naturalized citizens and vulnerable communities.
• Similar efforts nationally have prompted court challenges and raised questions about privacy, administrative capacity, and the balance between security and access.