Supreme Court Allows Partial Enforcement of Arizona's Proof-of-Citizenship Voter Registration Measures
ICARO Media Group
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has partly granted a request from the Republican National Committee (RNC) to enforce certain provisions of Arizona's controversial voter registration law. The decision comes amidst a series of election-related disputes expected to reach the court ahead of the upcoming November elections. With a vote of 5-4, the conservative justices granted limited enforcement of the law, while one conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in dissent.
The court's brief order did not provide an explanation for its decision, leaving room for speculation and further legal interpretation. However, the three conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch - expressed their preference to allow the enforcement of all three provisions in the law.
According to state officials, over 40,000 individuals have registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona without providing proof of U.S. citizenship. However, they argue that the majority of these registrants are inactive voters, and only a small number will potentially be affected by the enforcement of the law. In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden won Arizona by a margin of just over 10,000 votes.
The provision that the court has allowed the state to enforce would require officials to reject attempts to register to vote using Arizona's own registration form if the individual does not have documentary proof of citizenship. However, separate provisions that would prevent people without proof of citizenship from voting in presidential elections or voting by mail using a different federal registration form will remain on hold.
The case touches upon a widespread, unverified Republican talking point that noncitizens frequently participate in U.S. elections. The Biden administration has challenged the 2022 measures, asserting that they violate the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that requires individuals registering to vote in federal elections to attest their U.S. citizenship but does not mandate documentary proof.
Arizona's 2022 law, which has never been enforced, was enacted in response to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a previous attempt to impose a proof-of-citizenship requirement. The court ruled that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from adding additional requirements to the voter registration forms for federal elections. Consequently, Arizona implemented the proof-of-citizenship requirement for state elections but not federal elections, creating a tiered registration process.
While the Biden administration objected to the provisions requiring proof of citizenship to vote for president or vote by mail, other plaintiffs, including voting rights groups, challenged the law focusing on the state registration form. State officials, led by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, have chosen not to enforce the law.
The RNC, along with Republican leaders in the state Legislature, argued in court papers that the lower court ruling represented an infringement on the Arizona Legislature's authority to determine voter qualifications and structure participation in elections.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes previously mentioned that many of the individuals who registered to vote in federal elections only were likely students, service members, and Native Americans who did not have immediate access to their birth certificates during the registration process. He urged the Supreme Court not to grant the Republican request, citing the proximity to early voting and the potential for creating uncertainty and eroding public confidence in Arizona's election processes.
The decision by the Supreme Court to allow partial enforcement of Arizona's proof-of-citizenship voter registration measures marks another contentious issue in the ongoing battle over election laws and voting rights. As the November elections draw near, it remains to be seen how these legal battles will shape the future of voter registration and participation across the nation.