RNC says policy dilutes votes by allowing overseas voters who have never resided in the state to vote in elections
Yesterday, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sued Democrat Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold for allowing certain non-residents who have never lived in the state to register and vote in Colorado elections.
“Yet again, Democrats are trying to let people vote in a state where they’ve never lived,” said RNC Chairman Joe Gruters. “Jena Griswold is ignoring Colorado’s Constitution and allowing non-residents to cast ballots in Colorado elections. The RNC is fighting these unconstitutional schemes across the country, and we’re suing to stop this one.”
Background:
The RNC, Congressman Jeff Crank, and Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Sheri Davis (Plaintiffs) sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.
The lawsuit challenges a Colorado law and election policy that allows certain people who have never lived in Colorado - and in some cases have never lived in the United States - to vote in Colorado elections.
Colorado’s Constitution is clear: voting is reserved for Colorado residents.
Griswold’s policy allows people to vote based solely on the past residency of a parent, guardian, or spouse, despite never having lived in Colorado themselves.
The lawsuit seeks to strike down Colorado’s unconstitutional “never-resident voter” law and stop its enforcement.
The lawsuit also seeks the removal of ineligible never-resident voters from Colorado’s voter rolls.
This lawsuit builds on the RNC’s successful record defending voter eligibility requirements across the country, including a major victory last month in North Carolina, stopping non-residents from voting, and last week’s new lawsuit challenging a similar policy in Nebraska.
The RNC’s lawsuit against Colorado has clear merit on state constitutional grounds. Residency has traditionally meant personal presence and intent to remain, not a familial connection. The North Carolina court just upheld this principle, ruling that never-residents cannot vote in state and local elections under that state’s constitution.
The Colorado lawsuit raises a straightforward constitutional question: Can a U.S. citizen who has never lived in Colorado establish legal residency there simply because a parent, spouse, or guardian once did?
Article VII of the Colorado Constitution requires voters to have “resided in this state.” The RNC says the requirement cannot be met by proxy or inheritance; Residency is not inherited and cannot be established by proxy. An individual who has never personally made Colorado his or her home has not resided in this state.
Plaintiffs rightly contend this practice dilutes the votes of actual state resident voters and adds voters who, by the state’s own constitutional language, are ineligible. Similar rules have produced measurable numbers of such ballots in past elections that could swing close races. The suit seeks the removal of ineligible names from the rolls, plus an injunction against the policy.
Federal Military and Overseas Voters (UOCAVA) protects overseas voting rights for federal races but does not override state residency requirements for state and local contests. Courts routinely defer to state constitutions on voter qualifications, giving the RNC a credible pathway to another victory.
Other states maintaining the same policy should face identical scrutiny. Washington state, for example, allows never-residents to vote based on any “family member’s” last domicile—a rule even broader than Colorado’s, and which, of course, like Colorado, violates the state constitution.
THE WA STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS - Article 6, §1 Qualifications of Electors: All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE STATE, COUNTY, AND PRECINCT thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote…
The state constitution should matter!
Many other states and DC have comparable “Never Resided” provisions, creating an inconsistent national patchwork that invites the very dilution claims raised in Colorado. Consistency would promote uniform adherence to residency principles, improve voter-roll accuracy, and reduce perceptions of partisan advantage (overseas civilian ballots have historically skewed Democrat in available data).
The RNC has also pursued this legal strategy in Arizona, Michigan, and Virginia, expanding it to WA, OR, PA, NY, IL, NV, NJ, and other states is also warranted.
Election integrity demands that states apply their own constitutional residency rules fairly and evenly rather than selectively extending privileges that conflict with foundational voter qualifications.
Share This Post...
