District records given to Judicial Watch list 578 noncitizens who voted in Washington, D.C.’s June 16, 2026 local elections, sharpening a national fight over who gets a ballot and for which races.
Story Highlights
- D.C. records reportedly show 578 noncitizen voters in the June 16, 2026 local contests.
- D.C. law allows noncitizens to vote in local races, but not in federal elections.
- Election officials say ballot styles for noncitizens exclude federal offices.
- Congress has moved bills to bar noncitizen voting in D.C., setting up a control fight.
What the new number claims to show
Judicial Watch says the District of Columbia Board of Elections produced records that identify 578 noncitizens who voted in the June 16, 2026 primary and special elections. The group ties the figure to a public records request and says the data include fields such as ward, party, and ballot type. The public release describes the production but does not publish the full file or method used to define noncitizen status.
The number has drawn attention because it is concrete and linked to an election date and agency. However, the claim does not by itself show unlawful votes. The District allows otherwise qualified noncitizen residents to vote in local races. Without voter-level ballot records, the public cannot see which contests these voters marked or whether any federal votes were blocked or counted.
What D.C. law allows and how ballots are separated
The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, effective February 2023, permits noncitizen residents to vote in District local elections if they meet age and residency rules. The law keeps federal races off limits. The District of Columbia Board of Elections says its system can generate a unique ballot for noncitizen voters that excludes federal contests and provides only the allowed local races for that voter’s address.
Court and congressional documents describe the law as covering municipal offices and ballot measures, not federal offices. A federal court opinion summarized the policy as removing the citizenship rule for local elections while keeping the 30‑day residency requirement and the ban on voting elsewhere. A federal judge later dismissed a challenge because the plaintiffs did not show harm under the law as written.
Why this hits a nerve for both parties
Republicans in Congress argue that any noncitizen voting, even if local and legal under D.C. law, undermines trust and creates risks of error. House leaders have pushed measures to bar noncitizen voting in the nation’s capital. That campaign highlights a deeper conflict over who controls District rules, Congress or local leaders. District officials maintain their policy gives adult residents a voice in local government while keeping federal races off the table.
For many voters, the dispute blends with wider frustrations about immigration, election safeguards, and whether elites protect their own power. Some conservatives see noncitizen voting as part of weak borders. Some liberals see congressional overrides as an attack on local self-rule. Both sides share a core worry: systems that are easy to game and hard to audit. Clear data, sound ballot design, and public transparency are the only durable answers.
What we still do not know from the public record
The Judicial Watch release does not include the full voter-level dataset, the field definitions, or the method used to classify noncitizens. The materials also do not show cast‑vote records for those voters or how many ballot styles were local-only. Without those pieces, the public cannot test accuracy, check for duplicates, or confirm that no federal votes were counted. Publishing anonymized files and methods would allow independent review.
Broader research has often found very few suspected noncitizen votes in general elections. Still, the District is a special case because local law invites noncitizen participation in local contests. That makes ballot design and list maintenance more important, not less. Here, the path forward is simple and practical: release the data, show the safeguards at work, and let independent auditors verify that federal contests stayed off these ballots.
Sources:
pjmedia.com, x.com, judicialwatch.org, congress.gov, media.cadc.uscourts.gov, govinfo.gov, thehill.com, cha.house.gov
