In a development stirring intense debate across Minnesota, state election officials have acknowledged that under current law, noncitizens—including undocumented immigrants—could vote in state elections if they present a valid Minnesota driver’s license as identification. The revelation comes after a heated Minnesota House Fraud Committee hearing on October 14, 2025, where Elections Director Paul Linnell confirmed that the state’s voter verification system could, in some cases, allow individuals without legal immigration status to cast ballots.
The controversy centers on the “Driver’s License for All” law, signed by Democratic Governor Tim Walz in March 2023, which allows all Minnesota residents, regardless of immigration status, to obtain a state driver’s license. The law, which took effect in October 2023, was hailed by supporters as a measure to improve road safety and mobility for the state’s estimated 81,000 undocumented immigrants, according to PolitiFact. Yet, as the 2024 election cycle approaches, its implications for election integrity have come under renewed scrutiny.
During the recent committee hearing, GOP representative Patti Anderson pressed Linnell on how the voter registration system handles identification. She asked, “So we give a driver’s license to anyone here. You don’t have to be a citizen… So if someone comes in, they register, they have the driver’s license, but they have an incorrect social [security number], or no social, or whatever, then they become incomplete, but if they walk in to vote with their driver’s license, does that make them all the sudden now okay?”
Linnell’s response was clear: “If [the illegal alien] presents the election judge with that acceptable identification document, that would clear the challenge from the roster and they would be permitted to cast a ballot.” Anderson’s reply—“Well, okay. There’s your problem, potentially”—echoed concerns raised by critics who argue that the system’s lack of citizenship verification opens the door to irregularities.
The process for registering to vote in Minnesota does not require proof of citizenship. Registration can be completed with a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, and sometimes a social security number, but the latter is not always mandatory. As reported by Voz Media, this has led to fears that the expanded access to driver’s licenses, without corresponding safeguards, could result in unauthorized voting.
Secretary of State Steve Simon, also present at the committee hearing, was asked by committee chair Rep. Kristin Robbins whether he would support requiring proof of citizenship as part of voter eligibility verification. Simon pushed back, citing a similar law in Kansas that he said disenfranchised tens of thousands of legitimate voters. “30,000 eligible Kansas voters—as eligible as you are or I am—were turned away because they couldn’t produce the proper proofs. I don’t think we want to be that in Minnesota,” Simon argued, according to The Post Millennial.
Supporters of the “Driver’s License for All” law maintain that the legislation does not grant voting rights or legal immigration status to undocumented immigrants. Instead, they say its primary goal is to ensure that everyone on Minnesota’s roads is properly tested, licensed, and insured. The law eliminates the requirement for citizenship or legal residency to obtain a license and allows the use of alternative documents. Importantly, the license issued to undocumented immigrants is indistinguishable from those given to legal residents, a design choice that has drawn criticism from those who believe it complicates efforts to ensure only citizens vote.
“This improves road safety, because more drivers would be registered, tested and insured, and it also facilitates the mobility of migrant workers and families,” supporters argued at the law’s signing ceremony, as reported by Voz Media. Minnesota joined more than 15 other states, including California, Illinois, and New York, in offering driver’s licenses to undocumented residents.
Yet, the political divide over the issue remains sharp. Critics, such as those writing for Breitbart, contend that the combination of non-distinct driver’s licenses and the lack of citizenship verification is a recipe for potential abuse. They argue that the system is “set up so that there’s no way to catch the cheating, which allows the fake media to claim there is no cheating.” The article goes further, charging that Democrats intentionally avoid distinguishing between legal and illegal residents on state IDs and resist efforts to clean up voter rolls or require stricter identification at the polls.
“At the very least, they would require proof of citizenship to get a license, and then give illegals a license that distinguishes them from legal residents,” the Breitbart article states. “But Democrats don’t want to distinguish between legal and illegal residents. Democrats don’t want election integrity. Instead, Democrats want a system that allows them to cheat.”
Election officials, however, emphasize that all voters must sign an attestation confirming their eligibility at both registration and when casting a ballot. Those found to have lied on this attestation are subject to prosecution. Still, as Linnell acknowledged, the current system’s reliance on self-attestation and the presentation of a valid driver’s license could, in practice, allow noncitizens to vote if no further verification is conducted at the polling place.
The debate in Minnesota reflects a broader national tension over how to balance election security with access to identification documents for those living and working in the United States without legal immigration status. Proponents of expanded ID access argue that it fosters safer roads and better integration, while critics warn that it could undermine the integrity of the electoral process if not paired with rigorous citizenship verification.
As the 2025 election season draws near, calls for reform are likely to intensify. Some lawmakers are pushing for the adoption of a system that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote or to obtain a driver’s license. Others, including Secretary Simon, warn that such measures could disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters, as seen in Kansas, and argue that the focus should remain on ensuring broad access to the polls while prosecuting those who intentionally violate the law.
For now, Minnesota stands at the crossroads of a contentious debate, with both sides holding firm to their convictions. As the state continues to navigate these complex issues, the eyes of the nation are watching to see how Minnesota’s choices might shape the future of election law and immigrant integration across the country.
The questions raised in St. Paul this week are far from settled, but one thing is clear: the intersection of immigration policy and election security will remain at the forefront of Minnesota’s—and America’s—political conversation for some time to come.
