Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the government of the District of Columbia from using Federal funds to allow individuals who are not citizens of the United States to vote in any election, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to allow an individual who is not a U.S. citizen to vote in any election in the District of Columbia (DC). Further, DC must certify that it does not allow noncitizens to vote in elections as a condition of receiving any federal funds. Federal law bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections; however, the DC Council passed a bill on October 18, 2022, that allows noncitizens who meet residency and other requirements to vote in local elections.
Sponsors: Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
Target Audience
Population: Noncitizens residing in the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 70000
- The bill specifically targets the practice of allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local DC elections.
- Noncitizens living in DC who might have been able to vote in local elections under the DC Council's law will be directly affected.
- Local elections in DC include mayoral, city council, and other municipal elections.
- Federal funds are linked to compliance with this rule, impacting the allocation of funds to DC based on their voting laws.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the policy will be on noncitizens residing in DC who would have been eligible to vote in local elections. This could affect their sense of inclusion and representation.
- Citizens of DC who depend on federal funding for services may indirectly be impacted if federal funds are withheld, potentially affecting local government programs and services.
- Other residents in the DC area may not be directly impacted by this policy, but they could hold varied opinions on its implications for democratic participation and federal relations.
- The population most directly targeted by the policy is relatively small compared to the overall U.S. population, meaning broader national impacts are limited.
Simulated Interviews
high school teacher (Washington, DC)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was looking forward to having a say in local elections, as I am deeply involved in my community. This policy feels like a setback.
- I understand the need for rules, but it would be nice to have representation where I live.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
chef (Washington, DC)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Voting in local elections would help me feel more invested in the area I live and work.
- The policy seems to exclude important voices from decision-making processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
community organizer (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could disenfranchise many residents who contribute significantly to the community.
- It's discouraging to see a step back in inclusive local governance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
retired government worker (Washington, DC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal rules should align with the idea of keeping voting for citizens only.
- I support the policy as federal funds are critical for our city, and they should follow federal rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
university student (Washington, DC)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an international student, I'm here temporarily, but I would still like to be engaged in local civic activities.
- The policy doesn't impact me directly, but I think more engagement opportunities should be offered to residents regardless of citizenship.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
IT consultant (Washington, DC)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hoped to vote in local elections since I am involved in school issues.
- The policy limits my ability to influence those affecting my family and me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
local business owner (Washington, DC)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal funding is essential for many services in DC, so following federal guidelines is crucial.
- I support the policy to maintain consistency with federal law.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
city planner (Washington, DC)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more voters, including noncitizens, could encourage a greater sense of community involvement.
- The policy might cause DC to lose important federal funds if disagreements arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
barista (Washington, DC)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was hoping the ability to vote would be an option for me soon.
- This policy adds another barrier to feeling fully accepted and represented here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
federal employee (Arlington, VA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in strict voting laws but understand local implications may differ.
- I don't have a strong opinion as it doesn't impact my personal life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $-500000, High: $500000)
Key Considerations
- This policy primarily involves regulatory changes rather than new spending, keeping cost implications low.
- Implementation involves monitoring compliance, which will likely use existing government infrastructure.
- Distributional impacts are focused on restricting some noncitizen activities rather than fiscal transfers.