| Group | General (Presidential) | Presidential Preference Primary | General (Midterm) | Primary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S.-Born | 66.7% | 18.7% | 37.4% | 17% |
| Foreign-Born | 63% | 14.5% | 26.2% | 9.8% |
| Difference | -3.6% | -4.2% | -11.2% | -7.2% |
Exploring the Political Participation of Naturalized Citizens in Florida
Introduction
Naturalized citizens made up approximately 10% of eligible voters in the United States in 2022, yet relatively little scholarship exists to understand how their political participation compares to that of native-born citizens — and in particular, how that participation varies across different types of elections. This project explores that question using Florida voter registration and voting history data, focusing on whether a voter’s country of origin is associated with their likelihood of showing up to vote.
One framework for thinking about this is political socialization: are naturalized citizens who grew up in more democratic countries better prepared for — and more engaged in — electoral politics in the United States? To test this, I use Freedom House scores as a measure of how free and democratic each country of origin is, and examine whether higher scores are associated with higher voter participation rates among Florida’s foreign-born registered voters.
Research Question & Hypothesis
The central research question is: do naturalized citizens from more democratic countries participate at higher rates in U.S. elections?
My hypothesis is that naturalized citizens originally from countries with a higher Freedom House score will also have a higher turnout rate in federal elections, including midterms and primaries. Conversely, I expect that people originating from countries with a lower score on the index will have lower turnout rates for non-presidential elections in particular — since these elections are lower-salience and may require a stronger pre-existing democratic habit to participate in.
Data & Methods
The analysis uses publicly available Florida voter registration and voting history files from February 2026, covering all 67 counties. For each voter, the registration file records their reported place of birth, which I use to identify foreign-born registrants and their country of origin.
To make a fair comparison between foreign-born and U.S.-born voters, I used propensity score matching — a statistical technique that pairs each foreign-born voter with a U.S.-born voter who is similar on observable characteristics. Specifically, I matched on race, gender, party registration, and age at the time of registration. This controls for the fact that foreign-born and U.S.-born voters may differ systematically on these dimensions, which could otherwise confound the comparison.
For each voter, I then calculated a participation rate for each election type as:
Elections voted in since registration ÷ Elections possible since registration
This accounts for the fact that voters who registered recently have had fewer opportunities to vote than long-time registrants. Election types include General Presidential elections, General Midterm elections, Presidential Preference Primaries, and standard party Primaries.
Finally, I merged in Freedom House scores from the 2025 edition of their annual Freedom in the World report, which rates countries on a 0–100 scale based on political rights and civil liberties. These scores were joined to the matched voter data by country of birth, and I calculated average participation rates for each country with at least 5 voters in the matched sample.
Results
Participation Rates by Birth Group
The table below shows average participation rates by election type for foreign-born and U.S.-born voters in the matched sample, along with the difference between the two groups.
Freedom House Score & Voter Participation
The chart below plots the average participation rate of foreign-born voters from each country against that country’s Freedom House score, with a regression line fit to each panel. The red dot marks the average participation rate of U.S.-born voters in the matched sample for reference. Hover over any point to see which country it represents.
used (Mb) gc trigger (Mb) limit (Mb) max used (Mb)
Ncells 1518324 81.1 2475595 132.3 NA 2475595 132.3
Vcells 4080081 31.2 8389051 64.1 16384 8389051 64.1Conclusion
The hypothesis was partially supported by the data. There is a clear positive correlation between a country’s Freedom House score and the participation rate of voters from that country in General Presidential elections and Presidential Preference Primaries — voters from more democratic countries of origin do appear to vote at higher rates in the highest-salience elections. This is consistent with the political socialization hypothesis: experience living in a democratic country may build civic habits that carry over into participation in U.S. elections.
However, the relationship is much weaker or absent for General Midterm and Primary elections. This suggests that the effect of prior democratic socialization may be most pronounced for the most prominent elections, while lower-salience elections — which even many native-born Americans skip — are driven more by other factors.
Looking Ahead
Several directions for further exploration stand out. First, introducing local and special election data could reveal whether the pattern extends to the most local level of democratic participation. Second, a deeper analysis of primary elections broken down by party affiliation — or by unaffiliated voters — could reveal whether partisanship mediates the relationship between democratic background and participation. Finally, expanding the analysis beyond Florida to other states with large immigrant populations would help test whether these findings generalize nationally.
Data sources: Florida Division of Elections voter registration and history files (February 2026); Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2025. Analysis by Felix Walther.