The American Immigration Council does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. We aim to provide analysis regarding the implications of the election on the U.S. immigration system.
On Election Day, voters gathered in various cities and states across the country to cast ballots on immigrant-related issues, like immigration protections, integration, and noncitizen voting.
Here are the results of some key ballot measures.
Arizona’s Proposition 314
In Arizona, the passage of Proposition 314, also known as the Secure the Border Act, has raised significant concern over its potential to harm the state’s immigrant communities and economic future.
The measure contains two main provisions. The first would create a state crime for entering Arizona in between ports of entry and allows local law enforcement to detain, jail, and deport people suspected of entering the United States without authorization. The second would require employers and public benefits agencies to use E-Verify to check individuals’ immigration status for public benefits and employment eligibility (according to the American Civil Liberties Union, using E-Verify to check immigration status is “invasive, expensive, and inaccurate,” causing unnecessary waste of government resources).
Marketed as a measure to improve safety and address border security concerns, Proposition 314 was fueled by misinformation and harmful rhetoric.
Like many efforts aimed at passing harmful policies, proponents of Proposition 314 invoked public safety concerns, attempting to link immigration with crime and drug trafficking, citing fears around border security and baseless connections between immigrants and rising fentanyl trafficking.
But research shows that there is no link between an increase in immigration and an increase in crime. In fact, immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born residents. The proposition’s attempt to link immigrants to fentanyl trafficking is particularly unfounded, as data from the Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows it is primarily U.S. citizens smuggling the drug into the country through legal ports of entry, not immigrants.
While the provision making it a state crime to enter Arizona in between ports of entry only goes into effect if a similar policy in another state—like Texas’ SB4—has been in effect for 60 consecutive days, the law’s passage with a 25% margin is undoubtedly a setback for Arizona’s immigrant communities, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about immigrants while failing to offer meaningful solutions Arizona’s communities.
Eight states target non-citizen voting
Eight states passed ballot measures restricting non-citizen voting—another myth that research has debunked. These measures amend the eight state constitutions by adding language to specify that only U.S. citizens can vote, despite the federal government already addressing the issue under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act.
The measures in Missouri and Wisconsin also restrict local governments from allowing non-citizens to vote in some local elections, like we’ve seen in cities like San Francisco. Similarly, Santa Ana, California voters voted down an amendment that would have allowed non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Despite claiming to safeguard elections, these efforts risk disenfranchising naturalized citizen voters, and have even resulted in U.S.-born citizens being removed from voter rolls.
Inclusive ballot measures
On the flip side, several communities passed inclusive ballot measures.
In Denver, two ballot measures will help the city better serve its immigrant and refugee community members and increase its ability to recruit diverse emergency responders. Measure 2S codified the city’s Office of Immigrant and Refugees Affairs, and Referred Question 2T removed the requirement that firefighters, police officers, and other first responders be U.S. citizens.
Dallas’ Proposition H removed the requirement that members of city boards and commissions be registered voters, qualified voters, or qualified taxpaying citizens, allowing better representation for Dallas’ immigrant communities in local government.
In New York, Proposal 1: Equal Rights Amendment amended the state constitution to add protections against unequal treatment based on categories like ethnicity and national origin, among other things.
Looking ahead
As we look ahead to 2025, we know that states and localities will remain active on immigration issues. At the mid-year point of 2024, the American Immigration Council tracked over 700 immigration-related state bills, with states across the country advancing many welcoming policies. We expect the state and local landscape to be influenced by the national immigration conversation, but there’s reason for optimism.
As the year comes to an end, communities have continued to take up pro-immigrant measures, making it clear that many state and local communities will continue to demonstrate their resilience and commitment to protecting immigrant communities and fostering immigrant inclusion, this year and next, even if the federal government does not.
