| State and measure | What it does | Result (partial) |
|---|
| West Virginia Amendment 1 | Citizenship-only voting | Approved, 78.8% yes at 73% of precincts |
| Kansas amendment | Citizenship-only voting | Approved; 54% to 64% yes in partial counts |
| Arkansas Issue 1 | Citizenship-only voting | Approved, per Ballotpedia; no figures retrieved |
| South Dakota Amendment J | Citizenship-only voting | Approved, per Ballotpedia; no figures retrieved |
| Alaska Ballot Measure 3 | Citizenship-only voting | Not called; slow count expected |
| Arizona Proposition 144 | Citizenship, ID for all ballots, more | Defeated, about 57% no in early returns |
| California Proposition 39 | ID in person, ID digits by mail | Defeated, about 60% no, AP call at 49% counted |
| Colorado Amendment 84 | ID number on mail ballots | Defeated; needed 55% |
| Nevada Question 7 | Photo ID in person, ID digits by mail | Reported passing; uncalled in Ballotpedia tally |
| North Carolina amendment | Photo ID for all voters, mail included | Approved, per Ballotpedia |
| Ohio Issue 3 | Photo ID in constitution | Approved, per Ballotpedia |
","layout":"text"},{"role":"body","format":"markdown","text":"Sources: [Ballotpedia News](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/11/04/democrats-win-u-s-house-and-senate-majorities/) for approved and defeated calls; [West Virginia Watch via Yahoo News](https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/west-virginia-voters-approve-noncitizen-023107750.html) for the West Virginia count; [Law Commentary](https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/arizona-rejects-voter-id-overhaul-kansas-citizenship-amendment) and [MultiState](https://www.multistate.us/elections/results/kansas-2026) for Kansas and Arizona partial figures; [LAist](https://laist.com/news/politics/2026-election-california-general-proposition-39-results) for California. Nevada's passage was reported by [The Hill](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6189761-nevada-ballot-measure-passes/) and KLAS; we could not open either article. The two Kansas figures come from different points in the count, 54.31 percent at 38 percent of precincts and 63.68 percent in a later pending tally.\n\nThe split is not between red and blue states so much as between types of measure. Citizenship amendments passed by wide margins. In most states they change nothing in practice, because noncitizens are already barred from state and federal elections. Measures that would change how people actually vote failed in states with large mail-voting populations. Colorado's would have required ID numbers on mail ballots; Arizona's an ID for every ballot. California's measure, which would have required ID in person and ID digits by mail, lost by about 20 points in a state where most ballots arrive by mail.\n\n## What the citizenship amendments do\n\nEach citizenship amendment rewrites a constitutional clause. The current text says \"every citizen\" may vote, or describes voters without excluding noncitizens. The new text says \"only a citizen of the United States\" may vote. In Kansas, House Concurrent Resolution 5004 passed the House 90 to 28 and the Senate 37 to 3 in early 2025, [Ballotpedia's measure page records](https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_Citizenship_Voting_Requirement_Amendment_\\(2026\\)). Ballotpedia notes that Kansas already bars noncitizens from state elections through a 1930s court decision and from federal elections through federal law. Arkansas's Issue 1 passed the House 82 to 6 and the Senate 27 to 0, [per Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Citizenship_Requirement_for_Voting_Amendment_\\(2026\\)). South Dakota's Amendment J passed the Senate 33 to 2 and the House 58 to 11, [per Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Citizenship_Voting_Requirement_Amendment_\\(2026\\)). In each state Democratic legislators supplied most of the no votes and abstentions, by Ballotpedia's roll calls.\n\nWest Virginia's amendment changes the phrase \"citizens of the state\" to \"only citizens of the United States who are citizens of this state.\" State code already limits voting to U.S. citizens, West Virginia Watch reported. The Associated Press called the amendment at 8:43 p.m. Tuesday, with 78.8 percent in favor at 73 percent of precincts, [per that report](https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/west-virginia-voters-approve-noncitizen-023107750.html).\n\nThe measures are part of a coordinated campaign. Americans for Citizen Voting, a group that promotes the amendments, says 15 states amended their constitutions this way between 2018 and 2025. Ballotpedia's count agrees. All 15 passed, with an average of 73 percent support, [per its July analysis](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/08/six-citizenship-voting-measures-on-the-ballot-in-2026-continue-historical-trend/). The practical target is local elections. A small number of municipalities elsewhere have authorized noncitizen voting for local offices through local measures, and the amendments foreclose that option in the states that adopt them. Ballotpedia counted 18 local measures to authorize noncitizen voting between 1991 and 2025, of which nine passed and nine failed, and found none on the 2026 ballot.\n\nThe 2026 approvals are Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia. Arizona's Proposition 144 also contained a citizenship clause but failed; we count it under voter ID below because its other provisions drove the campaign. Alaska's is uncalled.\n\n## What the voter ID measures do, and why some failed\n\nThe voter ID measures differ more than the citizenship amendments. North Carolina and Ohio already require photo ID by statute; their amendments move the requirement into the constitution, where a future legislature cannot repeal it by simple majority. North Carolina's amendment also extends the requirement to mail voters. It passed the state Senate 30 to 19 on party lines and the House with all 72 Republicans and one Democrat in favor, [per Wikipedia's summary of the legislative record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_North_Carolina_Require_Voter_Identification_Amendment).\n\nThe three that failed would have changed current practice. Colorado's Amendment 84 would have required mail voters to add an ID number alongside their signature: the last four digits of a Social Security number, or a driver's license or REAL ID number. Signature matching would no longer have been the sole check. As a constitutional amendment it needed 55 percent, [Colorado Politics explained](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/identification-voting-ballot-colorado-amendment-84/). Arizona's Proposition 144 bundled several changes. It required government-issued ID for every voting method, including mail. It added a citizenship clause and a ban on foreign nationals funding ballot campaigns. It allowed ballots to be counted at polling places on Election Day, and it made election laws harder to challenge in court, [Law Commentary summarized](https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/arizona-rejects-voter-id-overhaul-kansas-citizenship-amendment). About 57 percent of early returns opposed it.\n\nCalifornia's Proposition 39 was the most expensive. Supporters raised about $37 million, including $17 million from Richard Uihlein and $8 million from Joe Gebbia; opponents raised about $35 million, with nearly $6.5 million from the Democratic Party, [LAist reported](https://laist.com/news/politics/2026-election-california-general-proposition-39-results). The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated implementation costs in the tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars. Polling had moved against the measure over the year. A Berkeley IGS survey of 5,962 registered voters in April found 56 percent yes and 39 percent no. A Public Policy Institute of California survey of 986 likely voters in May found 49 yes and 51 no, [per the polling table on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_California_voter_ID_initiative). The result, roughly 60 percent no, was worse for supporters than either poll.","textStyle":"body","layout":"text"},{"role":"htmltable","html":"