Michigan's attorney general is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge brought by Americans for Citizen Voting, a group pushing to let states explicitly bar noncitizens from voting in their constitutions. The state filed its response brief on September 2, arguing the case does not belong before the nation's highest court and that Michigan's existing election framework already prevents noncitizen voting without the constitutional amendment the group seeks.
The dispute centers on a Michigan constitutional provision, approved by voters in 2022 as part of Proposal 2, that enshrines voting rights for "every citizen" of the United States who meets age and residency requirements. Americans for Citizen Voting wanted stronger, more explicit language on the ballot, specifically a provision stating that "only citizens" may vote. Michigan election officials rejected that phrasing, and lower courts upheld the rejection. Now the group wants the Supreme Court to intervene, as the Michigan Advance reported.
The case arrives at a moment when election integrity battles are playing out across multiple fronts in federal courts and in Congress, with conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups pressing for tighter voter verification rules while Democratic officials resist what they call unnecessary restrictions.
Americans for Citizen Voting, a Virginia-based organization, has campaigned in multiple states to place constitutional amendments on ballots that would replace "every citizen" language with "only a citizen" phrasing. The group argues the distinction matters because "every citizen" language, while affirming citizen voting rights, does not expressly prohibit noncitizens from casting ballots.
In Michigan, the group submitted a proposed ballot initiative using the "only a citizen" formulation. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers declined to approve the proposed language for the ballot, and the group challenged that decision in state court. Michigan courts sided with the state, finding that the existing constitutional text, combined with state statutes, already limits voting to U.S. citizens.
The group then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Michigan's refusal to let voters choose the stronger "only a citizen" language violated the organization's First Amendment rights and the rights of Michigan voters to enact clearer protections against noncitizen voting.
In its brief, Michigan's attorney general argued the case presents no substantial federal question warranting Supreme Court review. The state's core position is straightforward: Michigan law already prohibits noncitizens from voting, registering to vote, or participating in elections. The constitutional language approved by voters in 2022 says "every citizen" may vote, and state statutes reinforce that only citizens are eligible.
The state contends that the difference between "every citizen" and "only a citizen" is a matter of state ballot-initiative procedure, not a federal constitutional crisis. Michigan's brief characterized the group's petition as an attempt to federalize a state-level administrative decision about ballot language.
The attorney general's office also pushed back on the First Amendment theory. The state argued that declining to place specific proposed language on a ballot does not suppress anyone's speech. Ballot-initiative procedures, Michigan maintained, involve state regulatory judgments about how proposed amendments are worded and presented to voters, not censorship of political viewpoints. The broader fight over how states verify voter eligibility has created parallel legal conflicts, including a federal court order blocking a DHS citizenship verification database that had scanned tens of millions of voter records.
Americans for Citizen Voting and its allies frame the issue differently. They argue that "every citizen" language creates a loophole, at least in perception, by affirming who can vote without explicitly stating who cannot. In an era when some municipalities in other states have experimented with allowing noncitizen voting in local elections, the group contends that explicit constitutional bans carry real legal weight.
The organization has pursued similar campaigns in other states with varying results. Its supporters argue that clear "only a citizen" language removes any ambiguity and sends an unequivocal signal that American elections are reserved for American citizens.
Critics of the group's approach, including Michigan officials, counter that the campaign addresses a problem that does not exist in practice. Noncitizen voting in federal and state elections is already illegal under both federal and Michigan law. Registering to vote as a noncitizen carries criminal penalties, and Michigan's voter registration process requires applicants to affirm citizenship under penalty of perjury.
The justices have not yet announced whether they will take up the case. The petition remains pending, and Michigan's response brief gives the Court the state's formal opposition. The group will have the opportunity to file a reply brief before the Court decides whether to grant certiorari, the legal term for agreeing to hear a case.
The current Supreme Court has shown interest in election-related disputes in recent terms. The justices have weighed in on voting procedures, redistricting, and ballot access in a series of decisions that have drawn sharp attention from both parties. The question is whether this particular dispute, rooted in state ballot-initiative mechanics, presents the kind of constitutional issue the Court typically agrees to resolve. The Court recently greenlit a Trump administration executive order on mail ballots over a pointed dissent from Justice Jackson, signaling the justices' willingness to engage with contested election policy questions.
If the Court declines to hear the case, the lower court rulings upholding Michigan's decision stand. If the Court takes it up, the case could set a precedent affecting how states draft and approve ballot-initiative language on voting eligibility, with potential ripple effects in states where similar campaigns are underway.
The Michigan case sits within a much larger national argument over election rules that has intensified since 2020. Conservative groups and Republican officials have pushed for proof-of-citizenship requirements, voter roll audits, and tighter controls on mail-in voting. Democratic officials and civil rights organizations have generally opposed these measures, arguing they suppress legitimate voter turnout and solve problems that barely exist in practice.
At the federal level, the debate has produced its own set of legal and legislative clashes. Congress has fought over voting legislation, including the SAVE America Act, which would impose new federal proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration. That bill stalled in the Senate after an overnight standoff earlier this year.
The Trump administration has also moved on the executive side, issuing orders targeting mail-in voting procedures that have faced their own legal challenges. Those orders cleared a significant judicial hurdle recently, though two dozen states filed a federal lawsuit to block related Postal Service rule changes before the midterms.
Americans for Citizen Voting's Supreme Court petition fits into this landscape as a state-level front in the same war. The group's argument is essentially that if states are going to protect election integrity through their constitutions, the language needs to be airtight, not just aspirational.
The Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case will likely come during the fall term. If the justices pass, the fight may shift back to state legislatures and ballot-initiative campaigns in other jurisdictions. If they bite, oral arguments could land in early 2027, putting a decision squarely in the window before the next major election cycle.
Michigan officials appear confident in their position. The state's brief treats the petition as a misuse of the Supreme Court's limited docket, an attempt to elevate a state procedural dispute into a federal constitutional showdown. Americans for Citizen Voting, for its part, sees the case as a test of whether states can effectively block citizens from strengthening their own election safeguards.
The practical stakes may be narrow. The symbolic stakes are not. In a country where trust in elections has become a defining political fault line, even fights over two words in a state constitution carry weight that extends far beyond the courtroom.
