Tag Archives: proof of citizenship

“The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system”

voter registration, ,

NPR’s latest report is truly a blockbuster.  The SAVE system run by DHS has always been a system keeping track of the immigration status of individuals at some point in the immigration system (including after people naturalize).  As the National Conference of State Legislatures said as recently as May 12, “USCIS is clear that SAVE does not provide information on citizens born in the US [or on individuals outside of the immigration system].”  But DHS and Social Security have now apparently expanded SAVE to effectively serve as a database of natural-born US citizens as well – without the notice to the public or the notice to Congress required by the Privacy Act of 1974.

We’ve never had a federal government database for identifying all of the citizens in the country.  (And even if DHS and SSA have added natural-born citizens, we still don’t: not every citizen is in the Social Security database.)  Part of that is based on concerns about logistics and data quality and data security.  Part of that is based on vigorous public resistance.  Part of that is based on the law: because of the other two categories of issues, Congress has never authorized the executive to create one, and has put legal limits in place to prevent the government just up and creating one without telling us.

And, it appears, the Trump Administration has just been building one on its own, with zero transparency.  According to the article, the primary public indication appears to be a June 13 fact sheet posted deep in the bread crumbs on the USCIS SAVE website, that says “SAVE can verify U.S.-born citizens for voter verification agencies.”  Zero details there.  DHS has also apparently briefed Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network on the system.  For the rest of us, bupkis.  I don’t understand how any of that is in line with federal statute, which requires advance notice to Congressional committees and to the public of any significant change in the scope or use of federal databases on individuals, with criminal penalties for noncompliance.

To be clear, a reliable database could be really useful for some purposes, IF DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.  (Just as one example, it would facilitate cutting many of the bureaucratic hurdles to accessing federal benefits reserved for citizens.  Including removing any claimed need for specific documentation of citizenship that citizens may not have readily available.)  But the fact that there might be some beneficial use cases doesn’t resolve any of the questions about logistics and data quality and data security and public support and legal authorization.  NPR reports that DOGE was involved in this Administration’s decision to just plow ahead and given DOGE’s other extremely well-publicized challenges with both accuracy and security, those questions loom quite a bit larger in my mind.

Share this:

USCIS updates SAVE immigration database to be queried with Social Security numbers

voter registration

From the press release this past Thursday:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services updated the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to ensure a single, reliable source for verifying immigration status and U.S. citizenship nationwide. State and local authorities can input Social Security numbers to help verify U.S. citizenship and prevent aliens from voting in American elections. 

* * *

This new partnership with the Social Security Administration allows cases to verify citizenship or immigration status to be created using Social Security numbers rather than a DHS identifying number, which most state and local agencies do not collect. Also, for the first time, agencies can submit more than one case at a time, making the process more efficient.

Sure seems like this new capacity required — prior to rollout — an update to the “system of records notice” (usually known as a SORN) that governs federal agency records on individuals under the Privacy Act of 1974, and an opportunity for comment.  And I haven’t seen one relevant to this change yet.

Share this:

9th Circuit affirms limits on AZ proof of citizenship laws

absentee ballots, election administration, NVRA (motor voter), The Voting Wars, voter registration

Justin here. A 9th Circuit panel is out with 156 pages’ worth of opinion in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the latest in the battles revolving around Arizona’s laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote.  There’s (obviously) quite a lot going on in an opinion this size, but it’s a pretty clear win for plaintiffs across the board, affirming most of the trial court’s May 2024 decision.  To distill:

  • Voters using the federal voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona).  The panel here held that’s true for voters voting by mail and voters voting for President as well.
  • Voters using the state voter registration form have a legal right, subject for the moment to a SCOTUS stay, to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s a consent decree in LULAC v. Reagan, which today’s panel held valid – but on this point the decision is still subject to a SCOTUS stay).  If voters (using the state or federal forms) submit documentary proof or have their citizenship confirmed through a check of DMV systems, those voters have to be registered for state elections too.
  • Voters using the state voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their residency even without additional documentary proof.
  • Naturalized citizens can’t be singled out (distinct from natural-born citizens) for citizenship checks using the SAVE database, because such a screen would not be uniform.
  • Arizona can’t conduct systematic list maintenance to remove records of alleged noncitizens within the NVRA’s “pencils-down period” 90 days before an election (but can conduct such maintenance outside of the 90-day period).
  • Voters who provide documentary proof of their citizenship can’t be disenfranchised if they don’t check a box on the state form affirming their citizenship (this is due to the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, and full disclosure – I submitted an amicus brief on this point)
  • Voters can’t be disenfranchised based on their birthplace or their failure to list a birthplace (also under the materiality provision, with the same amicus brief caveat)

And the court remanded for the district court to reconsider the issue of whether the proof-of-citizenship laws were passed with discriminatory intent.

UPDATE: Foolishly forgot the obvious tie-in: the opinion should make for an even more interesting discussion at Rick’s March 4 SDP conversation w/ Adrian Fontes, Walter Olson, and Nina Perales…

Share this:

“Top Wisconsin lawmaker has new plan to find non-citizens on voter rolls”

election administration,

Sigh.  The new plan is an old plan: compare DMV information to the rolls, but without any apparent plan to ensure the rigor of the matching protocol or to assess whether people who were noncitizens when they got their license have since become naturalized. 

If implemented without the right safeguards, bet on the effort capturing eligible citizens.

Share this:

“Millions of Americans Don’t Have Documents Proving Their Citizenship Readily Available”

Uncategorized

The Brennan Center, VoteRiders, U. Maryland’s Center for Civic Democracy and Engagement, and Public Wise are out today with an update on the 2006 study of citizens without ready access to documentation of that citizenship.  Turns out we don’t all emerge from the womb with paperwork.

NPR has more.

(Disclosure: I helped with the 2006 version, and I’m delighted to see more up-to-date research.)

Share this: