Pope Leo Votes in US Midterms: Does It Break the Holy See’s Neutrality?
Introduction
Pope Leo voted in the 2026 United States midterm elections, according to an announcement by the Holy See on October 30, 2026. The Vatican confirmed that Leo XIV, an American citizen by birth, had submitted a mail-in ballot ahead of the November 3 elections. His participation raises an unusual question of international law: can the head of a sovereign state vote in another country's elections without compromising its international neutrality?
The available facts do not establish a violation of the Holy See's neutrality under Article 24 of the 1929 Lateran Treaty. That provision concerns the Holy See's position toward temporal rivalries between states and contains no express prohibition on the pope exercising individual voting rights arising from his American nationality.
The distinction is legally significant because Leo XIV occupies several positions simultaneously. As Supreme Pontiff, he exercises sovereign authority over Vatican City State and heads the Holy See, an independent subject of international law. As Robert Francis Prevost, born in Chicago, he retains the American citizenship under which he has participated in previous elections.
International law does not automatically treat every personal action of a head of state as sovereign conduct. The legal consequences of the pope's ballot depend on the scope of the Holy See's treaty obligations, the capacity in which he acted, and the relationship between his nationality rights and sovereign responsibilities.
1. Pope Leo's Vote in the 2026 US Midterm Elections
On October 30, 2026, the Holy See Press Office confirmed that Pope Leo XIV had submitted a mail-in ballot associated with Chicago. The announcement described his participation as consistent with his longstanding practice of exercising electoral rights as an American citizen whenever eligible.
The confirmation followed reporting by the Chicago Sun-Times that the pope remained registered to vote in Illinois. According to the newspaper, Kim Fladhammer, chief of staff at the Will County clerk's office, confirmed that Robert Francis Prevost had requested a mail ballot on October 3. His registration was associated with an address in New Lenox, Illinois.
The Vatican's statement established that Leo had submitted his ballot. It did not independently establish that election officials had received, accepted, or counted it. Those are distinct stages of the electoral process, particularly where an overseas ballot must reach the relevant electoral authority before the applicable deadline.
The announcement also confirmed that Leo had exercised voting rights while living in Peru whenever eligible. He spent many years there as an Augustinian missionary and later served as bishop of Chiclayo. The statement did not identify the individual elections in which he participated during that period.
Leo XIV became pope on May 8, 2025, following the death of Pope Francis. His participation in the 2026 midterms was reported as the first known instance of a serving pope casting a ballot in a United States election.
His earlier voting history also attracted attention. The Chicago Sun-Times, citing Illinois electoral records, reported that Prevost participated in Democratic primaries in 2008 and 2010, Republican primaries in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and several general elections.
Illinois does not require voters to maintain permanent party registration to participate in a particular party's primary. Selecting a primary ballot does not establish which candidates received the voter's support. The Vatican did not disclose Leo's choices in the 2026 election.
His participation demonstrates continuity with an established history of American civic activity. The international legal question arises because that activity continued after he assumed sovereign authority over Vatican City State and leadership of the Holy See.
2. The Holy See's Neutrality Under the Lateran Treaty
The Holy See's neutrality has a specific legal foundation in the Lateran Treaty signed with Italy on February 11, 1929. Article 24 addresses the Holy See's relationship with temporal rivalries between other states and establishes the neutrality and inviolability of Vatican City territory.
The treaty's bilateral character is significant. It was concluded between the Holy See and Italy, and its obligations must be understood within that legal relationship. Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reflects the general principle that a treaty does not create rights or obligations for a third state without its consent.
An alleged breach of Article 24 would consequently raise questions about the Holy See's treaty obligations and the legal position of the parties entitled to invoke them. The United States is not a party to the Lateran Treaty merely because an American election provides the factual setting for the issue.
2.1 The Holy See and Vatican City as Distinct Sovereigns
The Holy See and Vatican City State are legally distinct, although both are governed by the Supreme Pontiff. The Holy See possesses international legal personality that predates the establishment of Vatican City in 1929. Vatican City provides the territorial foundation through which the Holy See's independence is protected.
Article 2 of the Lateran Treaty recognizes the Holy See's sovereignty in the international sphere. Article 3 establishes its sovereign authority over the Vatican territory, creating Vatican City State under the arrangements defined by the treaty.
The Holy See concludes international agreements, maintains diplomatic relations, and participates in international institutions. It has held permanent observer status at the United Nations since April 6, 1964. General Assembly Resolution 58/314, adopted on July 1, 2004, addresses its participation in the work of the Organization.
These international functions belong to the Holy See rather than simply to Vatican City as a territorial state. The distinction reflects the exceptional position of a religious institution possessing international legal personality within the broader relationship between religion and international law.
Pope Leo XIV is the sovereign of Vatican City State. Article 1 of its Fundamental Law, issued on July 31, 2026, recognizes the Supreme Pontiff's legislative, executive, and judicial authority. The 2026 law expressly replaced the Fundamental Law promulgated in May 2023.
Article 2 distinguishes the state's legal order from the Roman Curia and other institutions of the Holy See. Article 6 reserves the international representation of Vatican City State in diplomatic relations and treaty-making to the pope, exercised through the Secretariat of State, while providing separate arrangements for other forms of representation.
These provisions establish the pope's institutional authority. They do not determine the legal character of every action he undertakes as an individual.
2.2 The 1929 Settlement and the Limits of Neutrality
The Lateran Treaty resolved the Roman Question, which had persisted after the incorporation of Rome into the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. The disappearance of the Papal States' territorial sovereignty had produced a prolonged dispute concerning the pope's independence and his relationship with the Italian state.
The settlement negotiated under Pope Pius XI established Vatican City as a distinct territorial entity. Its purpose was to secure the Holy See's freedom to exercise its religious and international functions without subordination to Italian political authority.
Article 24 formed part of this institutional arrangement. The Holy See undertook to remain outside certain international political rivalries while retaining its moral and spiritual authority.
The provision was not formulated as an electoral rule governing the personal political rights of future popes. It addressed the international position of the Holy See within the settlement that established Vatican City's independence.
The treaty must also be distinguished from the Lateran Concordat, which regulated relations between the Catholic Church and the Italian state. Italy and the Holy See substantially revised that Concordat through their agreement of February 18, 1984.
The 1984 agreement replaced the earlier Concordat's arrangements but did not repeal Article 24 of the separate Lateran Treaty. The neutrality provision remains relevant to the Holy See's international legal position.
2.3 Article 24 and Temporal Rivalries Between States
Article 24 declares that the Holy See intends to remain outside the competizioni temporali fra gli altri Stati, referring to temporal rivalries between other states. It also addresses international congresses convened to resolve such rivalries.
The provision allows an exception where the parties to a dispute jointly request the Holy See's peace-making assistance. It expressly preserves the exercise of the Holy See's moral and spiritual authority.
These qualifications define a particular international commitment. The Holy See undertakes to remain outside specified political contests between states without abandoning its ability to mediate disputes by mutual invitation or address matters within its religious mission.
The wording does not establish a general prohibition on every papal statement concerning public affairs. A pope may address war, humanitarian conditions, religious freedom, or human rights without each intervention necessarily constituting participation in an interstate rivalry.
An American midterm election presents a different legal situation. Elections for Congress, state governments, and local offices take place within the United States constitutional system. They ordinarily concern political competition within one sovereign state rather than a contest between sovereign states.
The participation of an eligible American citizen does not automatically acquire an international character because that citizen also serves as a foreign head of state. Article 24 contains no express rule equating personal domestic voting with the Holy See's involvement in temporal rivalries between states.
A broader interpretation might regard papal participation in partisan politics as inconsistent with the institutional independence contemplated by the Lateran settlement. Such an argument would place considerable weight on the treaty's general purpose rather than its specific description of the conduct addressed.
That interpretation faces a textual limitation. Article 24 refers to rivalries between other states, not domestic elections generally. It also preserves forms of moral and spiritual engagement that may concern politically contested subjects.
The distinction between a broad expectation of institutional political impartiality and the actual obligations established by treaty law is essential. A political concern about neutrality does not, without an applicable legal rule, establish an internationally wrongful act.
2.4 The Neutrality and Inviolability of Vatican Territory
The concluding portion of Article 24 provides that Vatican City shall be considered neutral and inviolable territory. This guarantee is connected to the Holy See's undertaking concerning international political rivalries but addresses a different legal subject.
Territorial neutrality concerns the international status of Vatican City. It does not expressly require every resident, official, or citizen to surrender political rights possessed under another nationality.
Nor should Article 24 be treated as identical to the general law of neutrality applicable during international armed conflict. The Lateran provision forms part of a specific treaty settlement and must be interpreted according to its own language and purpose.
The distinction is relevant to Leo XIV's ballot. The fact that the pope resides in Vatican City does not establish that his participation in an American election represents the exercise of Vatican governmental authority.
No conduct connected with the ballot has been identified that would establish a breach of the territory's neutrality or inviolability. The legal character of an individual vote cannot be determined solely by the territory from which it was submitted.
2.5 Interpreting Article 24 Under International Treaty Law
The interpretation of Article 24 requires attention to the ordinary meaning of its terms, their context, and the treaty's object and purpose.
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provide the principal modern formulation of these interpretive rules. Article 31 concerns interpretation in good faith, while Article 32 permits supplementary consideration of preparatory work and the circumstances surrounding a treaty's conclusion.
The Lateran Treaty predates the 1969 Convention. Article 4 addresses the Convention's non-retroactivity, while preserving the application of rules that operate independently under international law. The customary principles reflected in Articles 31 and 32 remain relevant to interpreting earlier agreements.
Within the broader law of treaties, the distinction between an agreement's wording and its more general institutional objectives prevents political expectations from being treated automatically as binding obligations.
The ordinary language of Article 24 points toward relations between states. Its context reinforces that interpretation: the treaty established Vatican City to protect the Holy See's independence and defined the relationship between the Holy See and Italy.
The circumstances of the 1929 settlement also support this reading. The parties sought to resolve a territorial and diplomatic dispute while securing the Holy See's freedom to perform its religious and international functions.
Nothing in Article 24 expressly addresses the retention of foreign nationality or the exercise of voting rights by a pope who remains a citizen of another country.
An official act involving the Holy See in an interstate political rivalry could raise different questions. Personal participation in a domestic election, however, does not fall clearly within the conduct described by the treaty.
The conclusion is one of treaty interpretation. It should not be confused with a judicial determination specifically adjudicating Leo XIV's electoral participation.
3. Personal Voting Rights and Sovereign Responsibility
The pope's participation raises a question about the attribution of conduct under international law. Attribution determines whether particular behavior is legally treated as the act of a sovereign authority.
That inquiry is separate from the existence of a breach. Even conduct attributable to a state or another international legal actor is not internationally wrongful unless it violates an applicable international obligation.
3.1 Attribution of Conduct by Heads of State
The International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide the principal framework for examining attribution and breach.
Article 2 identifies two requirements for an internationally wrongful act: conduct attributable to the state under international law and conduct constituting a breach of an international obligation.
Article 4 provides that the conduct of state organs is attributable to the state, regardless of the governmental branch to which they belong. The rule includes senior officials and heads of state acting in an official capacity.
The ILC commentary distinguishes such acts from purely private behavior. Holding public office does not automatically transform every personal action into conduct attributable to the state.
The Mallén arbitration, decided by the Mexico–United States General Claims Commission in 1927, illustrates this distinction. The commission examined separate acts by the same official and distinguished conduct performed privately from conduct undertaken under official authority.
Article 7 addresses a related issue. Conduct performed by an organ in its official capacity may remain attributable even when the organ exceeds its authority or disregards instructions. An official cannot necessarily avoid attribution by acting unlawfully under domestic rules.
These principles form part of the broader doctrine of state responsibility in international law. They help identify the capacity in which conduct occurs before determining whether an international obligation has been breached.
The ILC Articles were formulated for states. Their application to the Holy See's distinctive international position requires care, but the distinction between official and personal conduct remains analytically relevant.
3.2 The Capacity in Which Pope Leo Cast His Ballot
The Holy See's October 30 announcement characterized Leo XIV's ballot as an exercise of American citizenship rights. It described his participation as consistent with his previous electoral practice rather than as an act of diplomatic representation.
The circumstances support that characterization. The ballot was submitted through an American electoral procedure available to eligible citizens. No evidence establishes that the pope issued an official endorsement, directed electoral activity on behalf of the Holy See, or exercised sovereign authority through his vote.
The secrecy of the ballot is relevant to the factual assessment. The Vatican did not disclose the candidates or political positions Leo supported. His individual choices cannot be inferred from his nationality, office, or earlier participation in party primaries.
The Holy See Press Office's confirmation presents a separate question. An official institutional communication does not necessarily convert the personal conduct being described into an act of government.
Attribution depends on the nature and circumstances of the underlying conduct. An institution may communicate information about a public officeholder's individual activities without legally adopting those activities as exercises of sovereign authority.
The reported facts favor treating Leo's ballot as personal civic participation. That assessment does not depend solely on the Vatican's description of the act; it is consistent with the ordinary character of voting as a right exercised by an individual citizen.
Even if a particular action were attributable to the Holy See, international responsibility would still require a breach of an applicable obligation. Attribution alone cannot establish a violation of Article 24.
3.3 Electoral Participation and Prohibited Intervention
The customary international-law prohibition of intervention provides another possible framework for assessing foreign involvement in domestic political processes.
In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice examined the principle that states are entitled to determine certain matters independently, including their political systems and foreign policy.
In its judgment of June 27, 1986, particularly paragraph 205, the Court identified coercion as an essential feature of prohibited intervention.
The case concerned substantial interference involving military and paramilitary activities. It did not concern an eligible citizen exercising voting rights while serving as another country's head of state.
A ballot submitted through a country's authorized electoral procedures differs from coercive interference by a foreign government. The existence of a foreign sovereign connection does not itself establish an unlawful intervention.
The relevant legal question is whether the conduct involves the exercise of foreign governmental power in a manner prohibited by international law. No coercive action has been established in connection with Leo's personal ballot.
The non-intervention principle and Article 24 must remain distinct. The former concerns prohibited interference with sovereign decision-making, while the latter establishes a particular treaty undertaking concerning the Holy See's international position.
3.4 The Boundary Between Private Voting and Official Advocacy
The pope's public identity makes the distinction between personal and official conduct more demanding than it would be for an ordinary voter. His statements may carry institutional authority even when they address issues that also arise in personal political life.
An official endorsement of an American candidate would raise questions different from those presented by a secret ballot. Such an endorsement would require examination of the capacity in which it was delivered, its content, and any institutional involvement.
It would not automatically constitute a violation of Article 24. An official statement could be attributable to the Holy See without necessarily involving the temporal rivalries between states addressed by that provision.
The treaty expressly preserves the Holy See's moral and spiritual authority. Statements concerning humanitarian conditions, religious freedom, war, or other public questions cannot be classified as prohibited international political intervention merely because they concern contested issues.
The legal analysis would change if sovereign authority or diplomatic mechanisms were used to interfere coercively in another state's political processes. Such conduct could engage international obligations different from those governing a personal ballot.
No equivalent activity has been established in relation to the 2026 vote. The recorded event concerns the pope's exercise of individual electoral rights, not an institutional campaign conducted by the Holy See.
4. Pope Leo's Multiple Nationalities Under International Law
Leo XIV's position illustrates the coexistence of nationality rights and sovereign responsibilities under different legal systems.
He possesses American nationality by birth and acquired Peruvian nationality through naturalization. Vatican citizenship is governed by a distinct legal regime connected principally to residence, office, and service.
International law recognizes that a person may possess more than one nationality. The acquisition and retention of each nationality depend primarily on the domestic law of the states concerned, subject to applicable international legal limitations.
4.1 State Authority Over Nationality Under the 1930 Hague Convention
The 1930 Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws addresses the relationship between nationality and state sovereignty.
Article 1 provides that each state determines its nationals under its own law, subject to international conventions, international custom, and generally recognized principles concerning nationality.
Article 2 establishes that the question whether a person possesses a particular state's nationality is determined according to that state's law.
Article 3 recognizes that a person possessing two or more nationalities may be regarded as a national by each state whose nationality the individual holds.
The convention emerged from efforts to reduce legal conflicts associated with statelessness and multiple nationality. Its preamble expressed a preference for individuals possessing a single nationality, while its operative provisions acknowledged that multiple nationality existed and required legal treatment.
The convention is not universally binding, and the United States is not a party. Its provisions cannot be applied as direct treaty obligations determining American voting eligibility.
Their significance lies in articulating principles concerning nationality and the coexistence of legal relationships with different states. The distinction between treaty obligations, customary rules, and domestic legislation remains essential to understanding the sources of international law.
Under these principles, the acquisition of another nationality does not necessarily extinguish an existing one. Each state may continue to recognize the individual as its national where the applicable legal conditions are satisfied.
4.2 American and Peruvian Nationality
Robert Francis Prevost was born in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14, 1955, and acquired American citizenship by birth.
His long association with Peru began through his religious service as an Augustinian missionary. He subsequently held several ecclesiastical positions in the country, including leadership of the Diocese of Chiclayo.
According to the Holy See's official biography, he acquired Peruvian citizenship by naturalization on August 24, 2015. Peru's National Superintendence of Migration independently confirmed the naturalization, identifying a Supreme Resolution dated August 17, 2015.
Peruvian immigration authorities have also documented his acquisition of Peruvian passports and the preservation of his naturalization record in their archives.
The acquisition of Peruvian nationality did not automatically terminate his American citizenship. United States nationality law recognizes that foreign naturalization can occur without an intention to relinquish American nationality.
His two citizenships create separate legal relationships. Peru recognizes him as Peruvian under its nationality legislation, while the United States continues to recognize him as American.
The international legal position of the Holy See is distinct from these individual nationality relationships. International legal personality concerns the rights, obligations, and capacities of an entity under international law; nationality concerns the legal relationship between an individual and a state.
The distinction is particularly important among the different subjects of international law, whose legal capacities are not necessarily identical.
4.3 Vatican Citizenship and the Exercise of Sovereignty
Vatican citizenship differs from many nationality systems because it is closely connected to residence, institutional service, and official functions.
Vatican City's Law No. CXXXI of February 22, 2011, establishes several categories of citizens. Article 1(1) includes cardinals residing in Vatican City or Rome, diplomats of the Holy See, and individuals required to reside within Vatican City because of their office or service.
For persons satisfying these statutory conditions, citizenship arises by operation of law. An individual administrative grant is not required to acquire citizenship under Article 1(1).
Article 1(2) establishes a different mechanism through which citizenship may be granted to other qualifying persons, including certain authorized residents. This distinction separates citizenship acquired directly under the law from citizenship conferred through an individual administrative decision.
Article 3 governs the loss of citizenship when the relevant qualifying conditions cease. For example, diplomatic personnel may lose Vatican citizenship upon termination of their diplomatic service, while persons whose citizenship derives from office-related residence may lose it when the qualifying office or service ends.
Article 4 provides for a register of Vatican citizens maintained by the Governorate. Registration serves to document citizenship and its legal basis. It should not be confused with the act of granting citizenship to persons who already acquire it under Article 1(1).
The legislation reflects Vatican City's distinctive institutional character. Citizenship is closely connected to the functioning of the Holy See and Vatican City rather than primarily to a permanent population acquiring nationality through birth or descent.
Leo XIV's position as sovereign is established by the Fundamental Law of July 31, 2026. His office and residence are also relevant to the categories established by the 2011 citizenship legislation.
Although Article 1 does not expressly identify papal election as a separate ground for acquiring citizenship, its office-related provisions provide the relevant legal framework. A person satisfying the conditions of Article 1(1) acquires Vatican citizenship by law, without requiring a discretionary administrative decision.
The absence of a publicly accessible individual registration does not establish that the pope lacks Vatican citizenship. Nor does it make citizenship acquired under an applicable statutory category dependent upon the public availability of an administrative certificate.
The coexistence of Vatican, American, and Peruvian citizenship does not automatically create incompatible international obligations. The relevant rights and duties arise under different legal systems and must be assessed according to their respective sources.
5. Maia Sandu and the Precedent of Voting Abroad
A comparable example occurred on May 16, 2025, when Moldovan President Maia Sandu voted in Romania's presidential election while serving as Moldova's head of state.
Sandu, who also possesses Romanian citizenship, cast her ballot at the Romanian Embassy in Tirana, Albania, following her participation in the European Political Community summit. Moldova's national news agency, Moldpres, reported the event.
Her participation demonstrates that a serving head of state can exercise electoral rights in another country of nationality. It provides an example of contemporary political practice involving multiple nationality and sovereign public office.
The circumstances also illustrate a distinction between personal voting and public electoral advocacy.
On May 13, 2025, Sandu publicly expressed support for Nicușor Dan, the independent candidate competing against George Simion in the Romanian presidential runoff scheduled for May 18.
In a video message addressed to Moldovans possessing Romanian citizenship, she encouraged electoral participation and expressed admiration for Dan's political qualities. Moldpres reported her message, including her public wishes for his success in the election.
Her intervention consequently went beyond a general appeal for citizens to exercise their voting rights. It amounted to public support for an identifiable candidate in another sovereign state's domestic election.
The distinction is legally relevant. A private ballot establishes an individual's participation in an electoral process, while an endorsement communicated publicly by a serving president may raise additional questions concerning official capacity and the political involvement of a foreign sovereign.
Sandu's conduct does not, however, establish a universal rule concerning the legality of such endorsements. Its international legal consequences depend on the obligations applicable to Moldova and the circumstances of the conduct.
The comparison also has an important institutional limitation. Moldova is a territorial state operating under its own constitutional arrangements and international obligations. It is not governed by Article 24 of the Lateran Treaty.
Sandu's participation and public support for Dan consequently do not determine whether Leo XIV complied with the Holy See's neutrality undertaking. Nor does this single example establish a customary international-law rule permitting unrestricted electoral involvement by foreign heads of state.
Its relevance is more specific. It demonstrates that a serving head of state may exercise electoral rights arising from another nationality and that personal voting and public electoral advocacy are distinguishable forms of political participation.
6. American Citizenship and the Foreign Sovereign Office
The pope's continued participation in American elections depends on his retention of United States nationality.
American law identifies circumstances in which voluntary conduct involving another state may result in expatriation. Foreign naturalization and service in a foreign government are potentially relevant, but neither necessarily causes the automatic loss of American citizenship.
The controlling legal requirement is that a potentially expatriating act must be performed voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.
6.1 Foreign Government Service Under 8 U.S.C. § 1481
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1481, identifies acts that may result in the loss of American nationality.
Two provisions are particularly relevant to Leo XIV's circumstances.
Section 1481(a)(1) addresses obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon the individual's application, or an application made by an authorized agent, after reaching the age of eighteen. This provision is relevant to Prevost's acquisition of Peruvian citizenship in 2015.
Section 1481(a)(4) concerns accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of an office, post, or employment under a foreign government. Its application depends on specified statutory conditions, including possession of the foreign state's nationality or an oath or declaration of allegiance associated with the office.
The latter provision raises a separate question concerning Leo's assumption of sovereign authority over Vatican City State in May 2025.
These two events must not be conflated. Peruvian naturalization and service as a foreign sovereign involve different statutory categories and potentially different legal considerations.
In both contexts, the statute requires voluntary conduct accompanied by an intention to relinquish American nationality. The performance of a listed act does not eliminate the need to establish that intention.
The statutory conditions concerning the foreign governmental office must also be assessed individually. They cannot be presumed satisfied merely because the person concerned holds the title of head of state.
The Holy See's recognition of Leo as an American citizen and his continued electoral participation are consistent with retention of nationality. They do not establish that every potentially relevant provision has been the subject of an individual administrative determination.
6.2 Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutional protection of American citizenship in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
The case concerned a naturalized American citizen who had voted in an Israeli parliamentary election in 1951. American authorities subsequently treated that participation as grounds for expatriation under the legislation then in force.
The Court rejected the government's position and held that Congress could not deprive a citizen of nationality without voluntary relinquishment. The decision overturned the earlier approach taken in Perez v. Brownell (1958).
The facts differ from Leo XIV's situation. Afroyim was an American citizen voting in a foreign election. Leo is an American citizen participating in an American election while serving as the sovereign of a foreign state.
The broader constitutional principle remains relevant because political participation involving another country cannot automatically be equated with surrendering American citizenship.
In Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), the Supreme Court further examined the requirement of intention. The case involved an American-Mexican dual national who had executed documents concerning allegiance to Mexico and renunciation of allegiance to the United States.
The Court held that the government must establish an intention to relinquish American nationality. Voluntarily performing a statutory expatriating act was insufficient without proof of the required intention.
The Court also upheld the statutory preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and the rebuttable presumption that a potentially expatriating act was performed voluntarily. That presumption concerned voluntariness, not an automatic presumption of an intention to surrender citizenship.
The decisions establish the constitutional framework governing expatriation. Neither specifically determines the nationality of an American citizen serving as pope, but both prevent foreign governmental service or naturalization from being treated as conclusive evidence of lost citizenship without satisfying the applicable legal requirements.
6.3 The State Department's Treatment of Foreign Heads of State
The United States Department of State recognizes that service in a foreign governmental position can raise questions under Section 1481(a)(4).
Its official guidance distinguishes ordinary non-policy employment from senior positions involving the exercise of governmental authority. The Department has adopted an administrative presumption of an intention to retain American nationality in certain circumstances, including foreign naturalization and acceptance of non-policy-level foreign governmental employment.
Positions involving significant political authority may require closer examination of the individual's intention.
The guidance provides particular treatment for Americans elected or appointed as foreign heads of state, heads of government, or foreign ministers. Such cases may raise international legal questions, including issues concerning the immunity that the individual enjoys from American jurisdiction.
The Department indicates that these cases may be referred for specialized legal consideration. It also recognizes that an individual assuming such a position may state an intention to retain American nationality.
No publicly established nationality-loss determination concerning Leo XIV has been identified. His assumption of sovereign office makes the statutory framework relevant, but it does not independently establish an intention to relinquish American citizenship.
The Holy See's October 30 announcement and the Illinois electoral records indicate that he continues to be treated as an American citizen eligible to participate in elections, subject to the applicable electoral requirements.
7. Overseas Voting Rights Under US and Illinois Law
American citizens living abroad may remain eligible to vote in United States federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, commonly known as UOCAVA.
The statute, principally codified at 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301–20311, establishes federal protections for qualifying overseas voters and members of the uniformed services.
Section 20302 requires states to permit eligible overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and vote by absentee ballot in federal general, primary, special, and runoff elections. Section 20310 defines the relevant categories of overseas voters, including certain individuals whose last qualifying residence was within a United States electoral jurisdiction.
These provisions allow qualifying citizens to participate in federal elections without returning physically to the United States.
Eligibility for state and local contests requires separate consideration. Federal overseas voting protections do not automatically establish that every citizen residing abroad may vote in every election conducted in the state where that person previously lived.
Illinois Election Code Article 20 distinguishes between categories of overseas voters. Section 20-2.1 concerns certain American citizens temporarily residing abroad, while Section 20-2.2 provides a federal-office-only mail ballot procedure for qualifying nonresident civilian citizens.
This distinction is relevant because Leo XIV has spent many years outside the United States. His continued American nationality does not independently determine the voting-residence classification applicable to every Illinois contest.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that he remained registered in New Lenox, Illinois, and requested a mail ballot through Will County officials. The electoral jurisdiction included contests for the United States Senate, the Illinois governorship, and other state and local offices.
Those reports do not independently establish the precise contents of the ballot issued to Leo or the overseas voting classification applied to his registration.
There is no basis in the established facts for concluding that he voted unlawfully. Equally, the existence of an Illinois registration does not resolve every statutory question concerning the scope of a particular overseas voter's eligibility.
The Vatican confirmed that Leo submitted his ballot. Receipt, acceptance, and counting remain distinct procedural questions governed by the relevant election rules.
The distinction between nationality and voting eligibility is important. Citizenship provides the fundamental legal relationship through which American electoral rights arise, but the exercise of those rights remains subject to applicable federal and state qualifications.
A foreign sovereign office does not, by itself, create an automatic disqualification under UOCAVA. The legally relevant questions concern continued American citizenship, the applicable electoral qualifications, and compliance with the appropriate registration and voting procedures.
These domestic requirements are separate from the Holy See's international neutrality. A ballot's compliance with American electoral law does not independently determine the scope of Article 24 of the Lateran Treaty.
Conclusion
Pope Leo XIV's participation in the 2026 United States midterm elections does not, on the established facts, demonstrate a violation of the Holy See's neutrality under Article 24 of the Lateran Treaty.
The treaty was concluded between the Holy See and Italy and addresses the Holy See's position toward temporal rivalries between states. It also establishes the neutrality and inviolability of Vatican City territory. Neither component expressly prohibits a pope from exercising voting rights arising under American nationality.
The legal character of Leo's ballot is decisive. The Holy See presented his participation as the continuation of an individual civic practice, and the available circumstances do not establish that he acted on behalf of the Holy See or used sovereign authority to influence the American electoral process.
His multiple nationality relationships are legally distinct from his institutional responsibilities. American citizenship law does not automatically extinguish nationality upon foreign naturalization or assumption of sovereign office. The applicable statutory and constitutional rules require attention to voluntary conduct and the intention to relinquish citizenship.
The conclusion does not establish an unrestricted entitlement for the Holy See to engage in foreign domestic politics. Official electoral advocacy, institutional intervention, or participation in an interstate political rivalry would require separate examination under the relevant treaty and customary international-law obligations.
The documented event concerns a personal ballot submitted by an American citizen who also serves as Supreme Pontiff. Article 24, interpreted according to its language, context, and purpose, provides no sufficient basis for treating that act alone as a breach of the Holy See's international neutrality.
References
Agreement between the Italian Republic and the Holy See (1984) Signed 18 February 1984, Rome. Available at: https://presidenza.governo.it/usri/confessioni/accordo_indice.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Associated Press (2026) ‘Leo XIV has become the first pope in history to vote in a US general election’, 30 October. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/cebcf71652c254383a39113c71aedace (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (1930) Concluded at The Hague, 12 April 1930; entered into force 1 July 1937. League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89, No. 4137. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=0800000280046354 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Illinois General Assembly (1943) Illinois Election Code, Article 20, 10 ILCS 5/20-2.1 and 20-2.2, as amended. Available at: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?ActID=170&ActName=Election+Code.&ChapAct=10+ILCS+5%2F&ChapterID=3 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/case/70 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and Italy (1929) Signed 11 February 1929; ratifications exchanged 7 June 1929. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 209–295. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/archivio/documents/rc_seg-st_19290211_patti-lateranensi_it.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Mexico–United States General Claims Commission (1927) Francisco Mallén (United Mexican States) v. United States of America, Decision of 27 April 1927. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, pp. 173–190. Available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_IV/173-190.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Moldpres (2025a) ‘Moldovan President casts vote in Romania's presidential elections’, 16 May. Available at: https://www.moldpres.md/eng/politics/president-casts-her-vote-in-romania-s-presidential-elections (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Moldpres (2025b) ‘Presidential elections in Romania // President urges Moldovans with Romanian citizenship to vote’, 13 May. Available at: https://www.moldpres.md/eng/politics/presidential-elections-in-romania-president-urges-moldovans-with-romanian-citizenship-to-vote (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Sfondeles, T. (2026a) ‘Pope Leo will vote from the Vatican, by mail, in Illinois' midterm election’, Chicago Sun-Times, 29 October. Available at: https://chicago.suntimes.com/pope-leo-xiv/2026/10/29/pope-leo-xiv-mail-ballot-illinois-midterm-election (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Sfondeles, T. (2026b) ‘Vatican confirms Pope Leo “exercised his right to vote,” submitted mail ballot in Chicago’, Chicago Sun-Times, 30 October. Available at: https://chicago.suntimes.com/pope-leo-xiv/2026/10/30/vatican-pope-leo-voted-midterm-elections-mail-ballot-chicago (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Superintendencia Nacional de Migraciones (2025) ‘Papa León XIV obtuvo su Título de la Nacionalidad Peruana en agosto del 2015’, Gobierno del Perú, 8 May. Available at: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/migraciones/noticias/1164398-papa-leon-xiv-obtuvo-su-titulo-de-la-nacionalidad-peruana-en-agosto-del-2015 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library (n.d.) ‘Non-Member Observer State Resources’ [online]. Available at: https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/observers (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United Nations General Assembly (2004) Participation of the Holy See in the Work of the United Nations, Resolution 58/314, UN Doc. A/RES/58/314, adopted 1 July 2004. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/525016/files/A_RES_58_314-EN.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Congress (1952) Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 349, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1481, as amended. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t8/s1481/ (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Congress (1986) Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Public Law 99-410, as amended, codified principally at 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301–20311. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-121/t52/s20302/ and https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title52-section20310 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Department of State (2024) ‘Accepting, Serving in, or Performing Duties of a Position with the Government of a Foreign State – Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 349(a)(4)’ [online]. Last updated 12 March 2024. Available at: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/Loss-US-Nationality-Public-Office-in-Foreign-State.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Department of State (n.d.) ‘Dual Nationality’ [online]. Available at: https://travel.state.gov/en/international-travel/planning/personal-needs/dual-nationality.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1958) Perez v. Brownell, Judgment of 31 March 1958, 356 U.S. 44. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-356/USREPORTS-356-44 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1967) Afroyim v. Rusk, Judgment of 29 May 1967, 387 U.S. 253. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-387/USREPORTS-387-253 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1980) Vance v. Terrazas, Judgment of 15 January 1980, 444 U.S. 252. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-444/USREPORTS-444-252 (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Vatican City State (2011) Legge N. CXXXI sulla cittadinanza, la residenza e l'accesso, 22 February 2011. Available at: https://www.vaticanstate.va/phocadownload/leggi-decreti/Leggesullacittadinanzalaresidenzaelaccesso.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Vatican City State (2026) Legge Fondamentale dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, promulgated by Pope Leo XIV, 31 July 2026. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/it/motu_proprio/documents/20260731-legge-fondamentale-scv.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Vatican News (2025) ‘Biography of the Holy Father Leo XIV’ [online]. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/biography/documents/biografia_leone-xiv.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Vatican News (2026) ‘Pope Leo XIV votes in US midterm elections via mail-in ballot’, 30 October. Available at: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-10/pope-leo-xiv-votes-usa-midterm-elections.html (Accessed: 30 October 2026).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969; entered into force 27 January 1980. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2026).