Get started free →
HR 9264 119th Congress · House

Bill to Tighten Federal Ban on Noncitizen Voting

Advocate

Official title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to strike all exceptions to the circumstances in which it is unlawful for aliens to vote, and for other purposes.

This bill would amend federal criminal law to remove exceptions from the rule that makes it unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections. In practical terms, it would narrow the circumstances under which a noncitizen could lawfully cast a ballot under federal law. The measure is aimed at election integrity and voter eligibility rules, and it would primarily affect noncitizens who might otherwise be covered by an existing exception. It has been introduced in the House and sent to the Judiciary Committee for review.

  • Amends title 18 of the U.S. Code.
  • Strikes all exceptions to the federal rule against noncitizen voting.
  • Applies to unlawful voting by aliens in federal elections.
  • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on June 11, 2026.
Public Relevance 18 / 100
Niche Narrow / procedural Broad

If you are a U.S. citizen voter, this bill would not change your eligibility to vote. If you are a noncitizen living in the United States, it would tighten the federal prohibition on voting and remove exceptions that could otherwise apply, increasing the legal risk of casting a ballot in a federal election. For election administrators and local officials, it could mean stricter compliance rules and more emphasis on screening and enforcement.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • Election integrity advocates They are likely to argue that voting in federal elections should be limited to citizens and that removing exceptions creates a clearer, easier-to-enforce rule. A categorical ban also reduces the chance of confusion among voters and election officials.
  • Immigration restriction supporters They may see the bill as a straightforward way to reinforce the distinction between citizenship and political participation. In their view, the federal government should send an unambiguous message that only citizens may vote.
  • Some local election administrators A simpler rule can be easier to explain and train around, especially if they are concerned about inconsistent interpretations of exceptions. Clearer standards can reduce administrative disputes at the polling place and in post-election reviews.
AGAINST
  • Civil liberties and voting rights groups They may argue that a broader federal ban risks overreach and could chill participation in communities where noncitizens are present in large numbers. They may also worry about confusion if the federal rule is stricter than state or local practices.
  • Immigrant advocacy organizations They are likely to say the bill treats all noncitizens as a voting threat, even though many are lawful residents who are otherwise fully integrated into their communities. They may argue that the measure could deepen fear and misunderstanding around civic participation.
  • Local governments with mixed-status populations Officials in diverse jurisdictions may worry that a stricter federal rule will require more outreach and enforcement resources. They may also be concerned about accidental violations by residents who do not understand the legal boundaries.
  • “strike all exceptions”

    This would eliminate any statutory carve-outs that currently limit the reach of the federal voting ban. In practice, it makes the rule more absolute and leaves less room for special cases.

  • “it is unlawful for aliens to vote”

    The bill reinforces a federal criminal prohibition tied to voting by noncitizens. That raises the stakes for anyone who is not a citizen and could affect how election officials communicate eligibility rules.

  • “to amend title 18, United States Code”

    This places the change in the federal criminal code, not just in election administration guidance. That means the issue is handled as a legal prohibition with enforcement consequences.

  • “for other purposes”

    This standard legislative phrase signals that the bill may include related conforming or enforcement changes beyond the headline amendment. Those changes would likely be aimed at making the prohibition easier to apply.

June 11, 2026

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.