By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
July 21, 2026
As voting-rights advocacy and immigration groups continue to wait for a federal court to rule on their request to block Indiana’s proof-of-citizenship voter laws, Indiana’s deadline for registering to vote and the November midterm election are inching closer, raising the possibility it will become too late for any judicial intervention.
The groups filed their complaint against the proof-of-citizenship laws in the Southern Indiana District Court in October 2025. In May, shortly after the primary, they filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the state’s voter citizenship laws and to restore the voter registrations of the Hoosiers who were removed from the voter rolls because they did not provide the documents required to prove they are U.S. citizens.
The proof-of-citizenship laws require election officials to crosscheck voter rolls and voter registration applications against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles database of temporary credentials. Individuals who appear on the BMV list are required to provide a naturalization certificate, passport or other document to prove they are U.S. citizens. Anyone who does not provide the proper documentation will be removed from the voter rolls.
During the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions, the Indiana General Assembly passed the proof-of-citizenship voter laws. House Enrolled Act 1264 established the proof-of-citizenship requirement for anyone flagged by the BMV data as a potential noncitizen. The next year, HEA 1680 expanded the requirement to include anyone flagged during the voter registration process.
The groups asserted the state statutes violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of the laws, both of which took effect July 1, 2025, more than 3,200 individuals on Indiana’s voter rolls have been flagged as possible noncitizens and more than 1,200 voter registrations have been rejected, because the voters did not provide proof of citizenship by the 30-day deadline.
“Federal law protects voters from discriminatory registration practices and unlawful voter purges,” Cole Varga, CEO of Indianapolis-based Exodus Refugee Immigration, said in a press release. “Indiana’s citizenship check laws violate those protections and threaten to disenfranchise eligible citizens based on inaccurate data and unfounded narratives about noncitizen voting.”
The defendants, represented by the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, opposed the preliminary injunction motionby pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which bars federal courts from altering election rules on the eve of an election.
The defendants argued making a change to election law when the registration deadline is Oct. 5 would confuse voters and create “extreme burdens” on state and county election officials. Both proof-of-citizenship laws have been in effect since July 2025 and “cancelling a process that is ingrained into the officials’ day-to-day workload could be extraordinarily burdensome.”
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office did not reply to a request for comment.
The Purcell Principle was cited in the ruling earlier this year that kept the state’s new voter statute regarding college IDs in place. Under the law, students enrolled at Indiana’s public universities and colleges could no longer use their school identification cards to vote. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction on April 14, finding the law unconstitutional. However, in response to an emergency appeal, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the state that, since early voting was already underway, allowing the students to, again, use their ID cards would cause confusion.
In the proof-of-citizenship case, the voter-advocacy groups argued Purcell does not prohibit the court from granting the preliminary injunction in this instance. They asserted the examples the defendants cited pertained to injunctions issued within eight weeks of an election and all arose over disputes about redistricting, which is a different issue than proof of citizenship.
“Purcell may apply only where late-breaking orders would confuse voters or impose undue administrative burdens on election officials – concerns that are absent here, where the relief would simplify, not complicate, election administration by returning Indiana to the attestation-only baseline that was in place before July 2025,” the plaintiffs said in their reply brief.
In addition, the advocacy groups reiterated their concerns about the unreliability of the BMV data to determine citizenship status. The database includes citizens and noncitizens because temporary drivers’ licenses and ID cards issued by the bureau remain valid regardless of whether citizenship status changes. Credential holders are not required to notify the BMV when they become U.S. citizens, so some individuals hang onto their temporary licenses until the expiration date even though they have been naturalized.
Moreover, registered voters and individuals who have filed voter registration applications could incur substantial costs if they have to get new copies of the proof-of-citizenship documents, the plaintiffs asserted. Naturalized citizens could pay about $1,170 for a new citizenship certificate or $555 to replace or amend the certificate. A new passport can cost up to $165. Also, the processing of these documents can take several months, which is well past the 30-day deadline to provide proof to the county election office.
The voter-advocacy groups found 1,270 records with a registration date before July 1, 2025 – the date that the proof-of-citizenship laws took effect – and were flagged. However, 975 of those individuals, or 78.1%, had their valid voter registrations canceled because they did not submit proof of citizenship.
“Our community members who are naturalized U.S. citizens cherish our democracy just as much as other Hoosiers,” Melissa Borja, co-chair of Hoosier Asian American Power, said in a press release. “However, the citizenship check laws impose an unfair burden on these voters and can result in their unjust removal from the voter rolls. We hope that the court grants a preliminary injunction because all eligible voters, including naturalized citizens, deserve a democracy free of discrimination.”
The defendants disputed the statutes discriminate against naturalized or derived citizens, because the laws require a notice be sent to any registered voter or registration applicant who uses an identification number from a temporary credential. The credentials are issued to any person with temporary lawful status, including those who have a pending application for asylum or a pending or approved application for temporary protected status.
“Even if a voting citizen were flagged based on a temporary credential, they would be notified and given opportunity to provide documentation to fix the problem,” the defendants asserted in their response motion. “These procedures are clearly intended to ensure that a citizen with a temporary credential is not erroneously removed as an eligible voter. It is not discrimination simply because differently situated registrations are not treated alike.”
The case is League of Women Voters of Indiana, et al. v. Diego Morales, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Indiana, et al., 1:25-cv-02150.
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org
