This article was published by Politico

by Riya Misra

To become a registered voter, brand-new citizens didn’t need to look far. Local officials and nonpartisan civic engagement groups staff naturalization ceremonies, offering on-site voter registration. The League of Women Voters was one such group, working on-the-ground at citizenship ceremonies, registering thousands of new voters each year.

“It’s priceless,” Beth Hendrix, executive director of Colorado’s League chapter, tells Women Rule. “Our volunteers take a lot of pride being there.”

And in August, rather abruptly, they stopped. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services updated its voter registration policy, barring nongovernmental entities from tabling at citizenship ceremonies — upending a decadeslong partnership with the League. State and local election officials still staff these ceremonies, and the USCIS has insisted that tamping down on-site voter registration “in no way impacts new citizens’ access to information.”

Now the League is suing.

Eight state and local League chapters have filed suit against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, claiming the DHS and USCIS are trampling on the League’s First Amendment rights.

“The Ban discriminates — based on viewpoint, content, and the identity of the speaker — against speech promoting the right to vote for new citizens,” the plaintiffs wrote in a federal lawsuit, filed Nov. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The USCIS has cited “administrative burden,” claiming the agency was unduly tasked with determining the nonpartisanship of each NGO on site. (Neither DHS nor USCIS responded to a request for comment.) For their part, the League has described this reasoning as “arbitrary and capricious,” and is suing to overturn these new restrictions. And while this isn’t an explicitly gendered issue, The National Council of Jewish Women has filed suit, too.

Women Rule spoke with Hendrix, who helms the League’s Colorado chapter — which has registered over 6,000 new voters since 2017.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Tell me more about the decision to file this lawsuit. Why now, and what do you hope to accomplish?

We filed now because a few months ago, we received a notice from USCIS saying that we would no longer be allowed to register voters at naturalization ceremonies, as we had been doing for more than a decade. We, again, have provided nonpartisan voter registration to our newest citizens at naturalization ceremonies at USCIS facilities in Colorado and at special ceremonies around the state. We don’t know of another comprehensive way that these newest citizens are registered to vote. So we sued to get that right back and to stop the policy change.

The League of Women Voters conducts voter registration directly on the ground at these naturalization ceremonies. Why are these ceremonies particularly well-suited to register voters?

A typical person being naturalized has been working toward this ceremony for years, and has endured hardship to get there. For us to be right there as they’re receiving their certificates of citizenship and give them the opportunity to register to vote immediately … it’s priceless.

It’s the only time that this group of people are together. There’s no other way to access new citizens as a group outside of naturalization ceremonies. And isn’t it natural that folks would be registered to vote immediately on becoming citizens?

This isn’t explicitly a gender issue, so I’m curious why the League of Women Voters is filing this lawsuit. Have you heard from other voters rights groups if they are joining you as plaintiffs?

Well, the League of Women Voters is not the only group that provides voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. It’s my understanding that the National Council of Jewish Women have also filed suit.

You’re right, it’s not at all a gender issue. It’s coincidental that two women-oriented groups have filed suit. But since 1920, this is what the League of Women Voters has done. Stand up for the voting rights of the American voting public.

And it historically has been a gendered issue.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, the League of Women Voters was founded upon women attaining voting rights. That’s why we were founded by a group of suffragists, to educate this newfound electorate of 26 million people who overnight received voting rights.

The lawsuit filing says USCIS’s ban has had a “swift and devastating impact on LWVNJ and local Leagues’ mission.” What losses has the League seen?

USCIS officials would reach out as naturalization ceremonies were scheduled, and we would arrange to have groups of volunteers there to register voters. This was a really meaningful volunteer activity for our members, because it was clearly so meaningful for the new citizens. If you’ve never been to a naturalization ceremony, I highly encourage it. It’s one of the most moving things an American can experience. And our volunteers take a lot of pride in being there, connecting with our newest citizens and giving them nonpartisan information about how to be an active and engaged citizen.

It’s a win-win-win for everyone. It’s a win for the league. It’s a win for the new citizens, and it’s a win for American democracy. Anytime America gets a new vote, a new voter, that should be a celebration.

So how has the League been devastated?

It has dropped to the number of people that we register to vote by thousands. And there’s a group of volunteers who aren’t doing what they love. Not to mention, there’s a bunch of new citizens who may not be receiving voter registration services.

So you’re suing to hopefully overturn this restriction. But if that doesn’t work, and if this ban remains in place, does the League have any plans to adapt its operations?

We have very positive relationships with our county clerks and the Office of the Secretary of State, and we’ll certainly do what we can to legally and ethically see what can be done to ensure that voter registration services are provided to our newest citizens who are naturalized in the state.

The League has been close partners with USCIS and federal agencies for decades. Why do you think USCIS has implemented this new restriction now?

They stated that it was a direct result of the executive order on elections that was issued in late March.

In their August memo, the USCIS mentioned the “administrative burden” of ensuring civic engagement groups like the League are nonpartisan. How do you respond to these concerns?

We have never heard that kind of complaint coming out of USCIS. They have welcomed us because our services are clearly nonpartisan. Always have been and always will be. That’s a vital part of the league’s mission, nonpartisanship.

What about the specific claim that the USCIS has this burden of trying to ensure or prove that you and other civic engagement groups are nonpartisan?

No. Not a watt.

USCIS wrote that the change “in no way impacts new citizens’ access to information and applications to register to vote.” It’s been a few months since that rule took effect. Are they correct?

We don’t know. We haven’t been able to access naturalization ceremonies to see what’s happening. We have been assured by local and state authorities that they are doing their best to cover naturalization ceremonies in terms of voter registration services. But talk about a burden.

I have a hard time believing that any burden on the part of USCIS in determining the nonpartisanship of organizations providing voter registration services is greater than the burden of directly providing those voter registration services.

Across the nation, this is a very volatile time for voting rights. I’m particularly looking at these redistricting battles that have swept states like California, Texas and Indiana. Why is this a particularly dire moment to restrict voter registration?

Because a democracy functions best and in the most healthy manner when there are as many people engaged as possible, yeah. To restrict voter engagement is to diminish the health of our democracy.

And how do you view this move in the context of everything going on in the nation right now? In the context of redistricting, and all of these uncertainties about voting rights and access.

I think that there is a lot of fear. I’m struggling to answer this question in a nonpartisan manner. There’s just a lot of fear out there, and there’s a lot of political division, and this is a result.

###