With Chile’s November election approaching, a provision from the Pinochet-era constitution has sparked a national standoff: Should nearly a million foreign residents retain their right to vote, or will lawmakers redraw the democratic map just in time for the election?
A Voting Right Born in Dictatorship, Rewritten by Migration
For decades, Article 14 of Chile’s 1980 Constitution lay largely untouched—a dusty rule from the Pinochet era that allowed foreign residents with five years of legal residency to vote in all elections, including those for president. No permanent visa required. No citizenship either.
The clause was meant to reward European migrants who settled in southern Chile during the dictatorship, many of whom never renounced their home passports. But times have changed. Now, Chile’s immigrant population has doubled since 2017, reaching approximately 1.6 million—roughly 9 percent of the country’s population.
“It was a historical oversight that became a political time bomb,” says Sebastián Salazar, a constitutional expert interviewed by EFE. “Back in 2015, everyone knew migrant flows would become a factor. Nobody wanted to touch the issue until now.”
Why now? Because November 16 is fast approaching. And unless Congress changes the law, hundreds of thousands of foreign-born residents—many of them Venezuelan exiles—will be legally obligated to vote in the presidential election.
Compulsory Voting and a New Electoral X-Factor
Chile restored mandatory voting in 2022, requiring all registered voters to appear at the polls or face a fine. That includes foreign residents who meet the five-year threshold, and they don’t even need to hold permanent visas.
Election officials estimate that 6 percent of November’s electorate will be foreign-born, most notably Venezuelans, many of whom arrived under the open-door visa policy of former President Sebastián Piñera.
This demographic twist is already reshaping campaign strategy.
“Venezuelan migrants lean overwhelmingly conservative,” says Salazar. “They fled leftist regimes. That’s now hurting the current leftist coalition in Chile.”
Polls confirm the trend. According to a recent Citizen Panel-UDD survey, far-right candidate José Antonio Kast leads among foreign voters with 28 percent, followed by mainstream conservative Evelyn Matthei at 19 percent. The left’s candidate, Jeannette Jara, scores lowest among migrants, with 43 percent saying they’d never vote for her.
Political analyst Axel Callís calls it “an electoral earthquake hiding in plain sight.” Speaking to EFE, he warned: “In no other country can foreigners shape a national election like this. It’s not just unusual—it’s an institutional anomaly.”
EFE/ Elvis González
In Congress, Confusion and Crossfire
With the clock ticking, Chile’s Congress is divided and in uproar.
In March, President Gabriel Boric’s administration proposed a soft revision: keep the voting right, but limit it to municipal elections. That proposal failed. Now, the government is trying a backdoor fix—waiving fines for migrants who skip the presidential ballot. Critics call it a subtle attempt to lower turnout without outright banning the vote.
On the other hand, conservative lawmakers have drafted bills to tighten eligibility, including those that require permanent residency or ten years of continuous residence in the country.
Progressive legislators call those changes discriminatory. “We’re talking about people who work, pay taxes, send their kids to school,” said one deputy. “You can’t invite them into society and then block them from its most basic function.”
Tensions inside the chamber have reached a boil. Twice last week, sessions abruptly adjourned amid accusations of “imported electorates” and “democratic sabotage.”
“This isn’t about national identity,” said María Asunción Poblete, a political sociologist at Chile’s Institute of Society Studies, in an interview with EFE. “It’s about math. Both sides are scrambling because they know migrant ballots could swing this race.”
The Debate Between Inclusion and Legitimacy
Beyond party lines and policy tweaks lies a deeper question: Who gets to decide the nation’s future?
Supporters of reform argue that voting should be tied to citizenship, not residency. Others say that the current system, although rare globally, reflects Chile’s long-standing preference for integration over exclusion.
Globally, the trend is toward limited suffrage for non-citizens, usually in local or regional elections. Countries like Mexico and Costa Rica restrict voting strictly to nationals. But Chile is different. It always has been.
That difference has created expectations, especially among migrants who’ve lived, worked, and paid taxes in Chile for years. “Rolling back their rights now,” says Poblete, “would feel like a betrayal.”
And there could be consequences. Legal analysts warn that abrupt changes—especially those made within months of a national vote—could spark constitutional challenges or even street protests, particularly in areas with high immigrant populations, such as Santiago’s Estación Central.
At a shop selling prepaid phone cards, José Ramírez, a Venezuelan store clerk, says he’s already picked his candidate: Kast. But he’s nervous. “If they change the rules now,” he says, “it proves we were never really welcome.”
Chile’s ballot boxes will open with or without reform. If nothing changes, nearly a million foreign residents will be eligible to vote, reshaping the political arithmetic of a deeply polarized election. If new rules are passed, the face of Chile’s democracy could change overnight.
Also Read: Fields of Fear: Inside the Hidden Lives of Latin Migrants Who Risk Everything to Feed America
What began as a quiet clause from the Pinochet era has become the election’s most unpredictable variable—a reminder that democracy isn’t static. It shifts with every newcomer, every crossed border, and every lawmaker caught between principle and political survival.