Ballot Bombshell: Noncitizen Votes in L.A.?

Los Angeles leaders just took a big step toward letting people who are not U.S. citizens help choose the officials running America’s second‑largest city.

Story Snapshot

Los Angeles City Council voted 10–5 to send a noncitizen voting charter change to the November 3 ballot.
If voters approve, the council could later create a new “residential voting” system for city and school board elections only.
Supporters say tax‑paying noncitizen residents deserve a voice; critics warn this weakens the meaning of American citizenship.
The fight taps into shared fears that political insiders are quietly reshaping the electorate while bigger local crises go unsolved.

What the L.A. City Council Just Did

The Los Angeles City Council approved a package of city charter changes that will appear on the November 3 ballot, including a measure on noncitizen voting.^[1] The vote was 10–5, which is a clear majority but also shows serious disagreement on the council.^[1] The measure would not itself let noncitizens vote right away. Instead, it would give the council power to pass a later law creating a “residential voting” program for local elections.^[1]^[3]

The proposal was authored by Councilmember Hugo Soto‑Martínez, who represents neighborhoods from Echo Park to Hollywood.^[4] His idea was first introduced as a motion asking voters for permission to expand voting beyond U.S. citizens in races for mayor, city council, and the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.^[4] The charter now ties city voting rules to state law, which limits voting to citizens, so the charter must change before any local rule can differ.^[9]

How Noncitizen Voting Would Work — and Its Many Unknowns

If voters pass the charter change, the council would still need to pass a detailed ordinance spelling out who qualifies, how they register, and how their ballots are handled.^[3] That ordinance does not exist yet. Supporters have floated including lawful permanent residents, green card holders, and people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who live, work, and pay taxes in Los Angeles.^[3] Whether undocumented immigrants would qualify remains an open and highly contested question.^[9]

The new authority would apply only to elections for Los Angeles city offices and the Los Angeles Unified School Board, not county, state, or federal races.^[1]^[3] Federal law still bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections like president or Congress, but it leaves states and local governments room to set their own rules for local contests.^[4] This means the legal fight will focus more on California law and the city charter than on federal statutes.^[10]

What Supporters Say: “They Live Here, They Pay Taxes”

Backers argue that many noncitizen residents have lived in Los Angeles for years, pay local and state taxes, send their kids to public schools, and follow city rules.^[3]^[4] They say people who are deeply tied to the community should have a voice in choosing leaders who make decisions about policing, housing, schools, and services they use every day.^[3] Councilmember Soto‑Martínez has framed the idea in simple terms: if you contribute to the economy, you should help decide who represents you.^[11]

Advocates also point out that noncitizen voting in local elections is not new in American history.^[11]^[10] Several cities, including Takoma Park in Maryland and some towns in Vermont, already allow noncitizens to vote in local contests.^[10] In California, Santa Ana voters recently considered a similar charter change that would allow noncitizen residents to vote in municipal elections, and civil rights groups argue that federal law permits this if state and local law agree.^[14] Supporters say Los Angeles would be joining, not inventing, this approach.

What Opponents Fear: Diluted Citizenship and a Shifting Electorate

Opponents, including some immigration‑restriction groups and local critics, argue that voting should remain a core benefit of U.S. citizenship and that noncitizen voting “undermines the whole concept of citizenship.”^[4] They worry that letting foreign nationals vote in a giant city like Los Angeles could weaken the value of naturalization and discourage people from becoming citizens. Some conservative outlets describe the plan as a way to “give foreign nationals, including illegal aliens, the right to vote” in city races.^[2]

Others raise security and privacy concerns. One candidate running against Soto‑Martínez warned that creating a public registry of noncitizen voters could expose undocumented people to risk from federal immigration enforcement.^[2] Critics also point out that no one has seen a full plan for how this new voter roll would be kept secure, how mistakes would be caught, or how officials would guarantee that noncitizen ballots stay out of state and federal races.^[3] Right now, these are questions without clear answers.

The Bigger Picture: Old Fights, New Distrust

This battle lands at a time when many Americans, left and right, already distrust the people running elections and government. Across the country, some states have moved in the opposite direction, passing amendments to ban noncitizen voting in any state or local election.^[10] Courts have also struck down some local expansions, like New York City’s attempt to let noncitizens vote in municipal contests, saying they violated state constitutions.^[10] Los Angeles is pushing into this legal and political storm with eyes wide open.

🚨 LA City Council Advances Proposal on Noncitizen Voting for November Ballot

Los Angeles City Council has moved forward on a measure from Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez (AI video) that would allow the city to consider noncitizen voting in certain local elections — including… pic.twitter.com/SS7ho6Jskn

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 18, 2026

For longtime conservatives, the proposal feeds fears about “engineered” electorates and political insiders using immigration and voting rules to lock in power instead of fixing crime, homelessness, and high living costs. For many liberals, it highlights a system where millions of workers pay into the pot but have little say in how the money is spent. Both sides share one deep worry: decisions that could reshape who holds power are being made by a small group of insiders while everyday residents struggle just to hang on.