Only Citizens at the Ballot Box? Inside Katie Britt's Push

Only Citizens at the Ballot Box? Inside Katie Britt's Push

Biden DOJ Weaponized FACE Act Against Pro-Life Americans, 882-Page Report Alleges
882 pages. One damning conclusion: they targeted you for your faith.

A bombshell report just dropped — and it confirms what many suspected for years.
The Biden DOJ didn't just go after pro-life Americans. They coordinated with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation to build cases against them, withheld evidence from defense attorneys, tried to screen out religious jurors, and pushed for sentences more than twice as harsh as those sought against pro-abortion defendants.

26.8 months sought for pro-lifers. 12.3 months for the other side. Same law. Different treatment.

Four prosecutors have already been fired. Trump already pardoned the men and women targeted.

The full story is in the comments — and it's worse than you think. Share so others see what was done in their name. 

Your image shows Alabama Senator Katie Britt in a red blazer next to a "VOTE HERE" sign. The text asks, "Do you support Alabama Senator Katie Britt's bill to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in elections?"

The question sounds simple, because federal law already says only citizens can vote in federal elections. Britt's work is about how states prove that, especially when people register by mail.

What the bill actually does

The centerpiece is the Citizen Ballot Protection Act, which Britt has introduced and reintroduced with Senate Republicans.

• It would require proof of citizenship for mail-in voter registration, aiming to prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections.
• The bill is written to work with the National Voter Registration Act, the 1993 motor-voter law, and it would let states ask for documents on the federal mail-in form.
• It is modeled after House legislation and has been co-led at times with Senators Ted Cruz and Roger Wicker.

Britt has also led a separate effort focused on Washington, D.C., joining 21 Republican colleagues to introduce legislation to ban noncitizens from voting in D.C. local elections, after the city council in 2022 allowed noncitizen residents to vote in municipal races.

She frames both bills as part of a broader election-integrity agenda and has publicly backed the SAVE Act, the House-passed Republican bill on citizenship verification.

What current law already says

• Federal elections: It is already a federal crime for noncitizens to vote for president, Senate, or House. Penalties include fines, imprisonment, and deportation.
• State and local elections: States set their own rules. A small number of local jurisdictions, including D.C. and a few Maryland cities, plus San Francisco for school board, allow lawful permanent residents to vote locally. That is what Britt's D.C. bill targets.
• Registration: Under the NVRA, states must offer mail-in registration with a federal form that asks applicants to swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury. The fight is over whether states can also require documentary proof, like a passport or birth certificate, at the point of registration.

Britt and Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen have testified that federal law creates barriers to citizenship verification, and that states need clearer authority to check documents, especially for mail registrations.

Why supporters say it is needed

Britt's argument, laid out in her Senate releases, has three parts:

1. Close a paperwork gap. The federal mail form relies on an attestation. Her bill would let states demand proof up front, which supporters say deters mistakes and fraud.
2. Protect confidence. Even rare cases get amplified. Requiring documents, supporters argue, reassures voters that only citizens are on the rolls.
3. Push back on local noncitizen voting. The D.C. law, in this view, normalizes noncitizen voting and could confuse federal eligibility. A federal ban for the capital would set a precedent.

The political context matters. The House has already passed the SAVE Act, and 23 Republican-led states have moved on similar measures, including proof-of-citizenship or stricter photo ID rules. Britt's Senate bills align with that state-level momentum.

Why opponents push back

Critics, including most Senate Democrats and voting-rights groups, make a different case:

1. The problem is tiny, the burden is not. Documented noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare. Requiring passports or birth certificates at registration, they argue, risks blocking eligible citizens who lack ready documents, especially married women with name changes, low-income voters, and older Americans born outside hospitals.
2. Federal preemption concerns. The NVRA was designed to make registration easier. Adding a proof requirement could conflict with that purpose and invite lawsuits, as earlier state attempts in Arizona and Kansas did.
3. Local control. On D.C., opponents say home rule should let the city decide who votes for mayor and council, just as Maryland towns do.

They also note that existing safeguards, database checks, signature verification, and criminal penalties, already address the risk, and that adding paperwork could slow registration drives ahead of the 2026 midterms.

What the bills would change in practice

If the Citizen Ballot Protection Act became law:

• States could require a passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers, or other approved proof when someone mails in the federal registration form.
• Election offices would need new procedures to copy, store, and verify those documents, plus a process for voters who register at DMVs or online.
• Legal challenges would be near certain, focused on whether Congress can modify the NVRA in this way and whether the burden on voters is justified.

If the D.C. bill passed:

• Noncitizen residents would lose the right to vote in local D.C. elections, reversing the 2022 city law. Federal elections in D.C. would remain citizens-only, as they are now.

Neither bill would change the basic federal ban on noncitizen voting for Congress or president. That ban already exists.

Where things stand in Congress

• The Citizen Ballot Protection Act has Republican cosponsors, including Senate leadership allies, but has not advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate committees as of April 2026.
• The SAVE Act passed the House with Republican support and is stalled in the Senate, where it faces a filibuster.
• The D.C. noncitizen-voting ban has drawn the most bipartisan interest in the Senate, but still lacks the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

Britt has used hearings with state election officials to keep the issue visible, arguing that states need tools, not just oaths, to verify citizenship.

The bottom line for voters

Do you support Britt's bill? That depends on how you weigh two risks.

If you worry most about ineligible registrations slipping through, especially by mail, you will likely support letting states demand proof of citizenship up front. You will see the bill as closing a loophole and aligning federal law with what most Americans assume is already true.

If you worry most about eligible citizens being blocked by paperwork, you will likely oppose it. You will see the current attestation-plus-penalties system as sufficient, and view new document mandates as a barrier that solves a rare problem by creating a common one.

The core fact does not change with either bill: only U.S. citizens can legally vote in federal elections today. Britt's legislation is not about changing who is allowed, it is about changing how we prove it at the moment you register, particularly by mail, and about whether Congress should override local decisions like D.C.'s.