Berlin is awash in campaign posters this week, but the city is holding not one but two elections with two separate electorates. While all residents can vote for the 12 borough assemblies that manage schools, parks and youth services, only German nationals are entitled to choose the members of the city‑wide parliament that decides on the curriculum, housing policy for the former Tempelhof airport and the overall budget.

The distinction matters for the roughly a quarter of a million EU citizens who live in the German capital. They can influence decisions that affect their immediate neighbourhood, such as the allocation of funds for a new playground or the maintenance of a local library, but they have no say over the strategic choices that shape Berlin as a whole.

Why the split exists

Berlin's dual status as a city and a federal state is a quirk of German constitutional history. European law guarantees the right of EU citizens to vote in municipal elections in the country where they reside, but it does not extend that right to regional or national polls. Those higher‑level elections remain the exclusive domain of the host country's own citizens.

Consequently, an EU national living in Munich could cast a ballot for the mayor earlier this year, yet a fellow EU resident in Berlin will not be able to vote for the mayor who sits in the Rotes Rathaus. The European Union leaves it to each member state to decide whether to broaden the franchise to state or national elections, and only a handful have done so.

European precedents and British irony

Before it left the bloc, the United Kingdom extended voting rights to EU citizens for the London Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. In practice, an EU national residing in post‑Brexit Britain may now enjoy a broader democratic voice than a counterpart living in many other EU countries.

In March, Marilena Raouna, then Cyprus's deputy minister for European Affairs and the minister responsible for the country's EU Council presidency, summed up the principle that underpins the EU's approach: "Freedom of movement must go hand in hand with the full and equal ability to participate in democratic life." The council's recent measures to simplify local voting procedures are a step forward, but they address only the surface of a deeper constitutional question, what political citizenship should look like in a Union where millions live permanently outside their country of birth.

From Maastricht to today

Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, EU citizens have been able to vote in municipal elections in their country of residence and in European Parliament elections. At the time, the provision was seen as a bold move toward a more integrated Europe. Thirty‑plus years on, many argue that the rule feels increasingly out of step with a reality in which families, workers and retirees routinely cross borders and set down roots far from their passports.

The paradox is stark: EU citizens can elect officials who decide on everything from parking enforcement to library funding, and they also vote for representatives who shape EU trade policy and regulate multinational tech firms. Yet they are excluded from the intermediate tier of governance that determines regional transport networks, housing strategies and environmental planning, decisions that directly affect their daily lives.

Voices from the ground

During the campaign, a candidate for the pan‑European party Volt plastered the streets with posters that asked, in blunt language, why EU residents should be treated as second‑class voters. An Austrian couple who have lived in Berlin for many years stopped to chat. They told the activist that while they could vote for the Austrian president back home, they would much rather have a say in the elections that decide whether a new housing block will rise on the former airfield or whether a new bike lane will be built on their street.

Their sentiment echoes a broader frustration among migrants who have embraced European integration fully, moving for work, study or family, only to find their political influence curtailed at the very level where it matters most.

Implications for workers and households

The democratic gap has concrete consequences for ordinary people. Housing policy, for instance, is a key driver of living costs in Berlin, a city already grappling with rising rents and a shortage of affordable homes. When decisions about the redevelopment of Tempelhofer Feld are taken at the city‑wide level, residents without a vote cannot directly influence outcomes that may affect their rent or neighbourhood character.

Similarly, transport funding, a perennial issue in Berlin's campaign discourse, is allocated by the city parliament. Without representation, EU residents lack a formal channel to push for better public‑transport links that could reduce commuting costs and carbon emissions.

Calls for reform

Advocates argue that extending voting rights to regional elections would not only rectify a democratic deficit but also strengthen the EU's claim to be more than an economic bloc. They point out that many EU citizens already participate in European Parliament elections, yet the turnout remains low, partly because voters feel disconnected from the issues at stake.

Granting the right to vote in state or regional elections could increase engagement, give migrants a stake in local policy outcomes and reduce the sense of alienation that fuels populist narratives. It would also align the Union's legal framework with the reality of a mobile labour force that contributes to tax revenues, social security systems and the cultural fabric of host societies.

Political hurdles

National governments remain wary. Extending the franchise could be portrayed as ceding sovereignty, a sensitive topic in countries where immigration debates dominate politics. Some fear that newcomers might tilt electoral outcomes in regions where they are concentrated, though evidence from countries that have broadened voting rights, such as the UK, suggests the impact is modest.

Nevertheless, the principle of equal democratic participation is gaining traction among civil‑society groups, trade unions and progressive parties across Europe. They argue that a truly inclusive Union must ensure that those who live, work and pay taxes in a member state can also shape the policies that affect their lives.

What comes next

As Berlin's borough elections conclude and the city‑wide vote approaches, activists plan to keep the issue in the public eye. Posters, street debates and social‑media campaigns aim to pressure the German government and EU institutions to reconsider the current arrangement.

If the EU is serious about freedom of movement as a fundamental right, the next step will be to match that freedom with political rights at the regional level. Until then, the millions of EU citizens who have built their lives in another member state will continue to be citizens in name only when it comes to shaping the communities they call home.