On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a mixed bag of news for Arizona’s voting regulations, setting the stage for an intriguing legal battle as the November presidential election draws closer. In a significant move, the Court chose not to reinstate parts of an Arizona law that could have barred thousands from voting, either in-person or by mail. However, it did give the green light to other, more contentious aspects of the legislation.
Here’s the breakdown: The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision that had blocked the enforcement of a requirement mandating voters to prove their U.S. citizenship for this year’s presidential election. On the flip side, the Court allowed the state to enforce a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship before they can register to vote using a state-specific form. This means that while new voters will need to show proof of citizenship to register with the state, they can still use a federal form to register without such proof.
In other words, the ruling is a partial win for Republicans. Under this decision, new voters in Arizona will have to meet certain proof-of-citizenship requirements. For those who can’t document their citizenship, there’s a silver lining—they can still register to vote using a federal form, though this will likely impact how they vote in state and local elections.
Arizona is a critical battleground in the 2024 presidential race. In 2020, Joe Biden edged out Donald Trump in the state by a razor-thin margin of just over 10,000 votes, while Trump had clinched the state in 2016. With such tight margins, every vote counts, and the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for this year’s election.
This case is likely just the beginning of what could be a series of high-stakes disputes the Supreme Court will face this election season. The Republican National Committee, along with state GOP lawmakers who supported the law, had pushed for the Court to intervene in this clash over election rules. This case spotlighted the issue of non-citizen voting—a hot-button topic for Republicans as they campaign this year. The Court’s decision came quickly and without detailed explanation, a common practice for emergency appeals.
The Court’s decision was divided. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch were in favor of allowing more of the state’s proof-of-citizenship requirements to be enforced. They would have blocked currently registered voters from casting a presidential ballot if they didn’t meet the new criteria. On the other hand, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett were aligned in favor of keeping all contested provisions of the law on hold.
Under the previous system, Arizona residents could use either state or federal forms to register to vote. If they chose not to provide proof of citizenship, they were only eligible to vote in federal elections. However, a 2022 overhaul of this system, driven by unfounded claims of widespread immigrant voting influencing election outcomes, introduced stricter requirements. The new law aimed to prevent voters who hadn’t provided proof of citizenship from participating in presidential elections or voting by mail, irrespective of the registration form used. Furthermore, the law barred election officials from accepting any state voter registration form without the required documentation.
Last year, a U.S. District Judge put a hold on some of these new requirements. Recently, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, expressed concerns about the timing of the decision, warning that reinstating the requirements close to the November election could cause confusion and impose undue hardships on voters and election officials alike. “My concern is that changes to the process should not occur this close to an election; it creates confusion for voters,” Fontes remarked.
Bruce Spiva, Senior Vice President at the Campaign Legal Center, which represented voting rights groups in this case, criticized the court’s order. He argued that it disrupted “longstanding rules on the eve of an election,” potentially causing significant voter confusion. Spiva added, “Free and fair elections rely on every citizen being able to cast a ballot and the fight is far from over.”
The 2022 law faced challenges not just from voting rights groups but also from the Biden administration and the Democratic National Committee, who argued that reinstating the requirements would disenfranchise voters who may have trouble accessing necessary documents, such as birth certificates. They also claimed the law disproportionately impacted Native Americans and could sow chaos by preventing those who voted in the primaries from participating in the general election. The Democrats had hoped the Supreme Court would invoke the Purcell principle, a legal doctrine that often guides the Court to avoid last-minute changes to election rules. However, the Court’s order did not reference this principle.
Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, noted the unusual nature of the ruling. “What’s especially surprising about the ruling is the absence of any reference to Purcell,” he said. “The Court likes to insist on limiting confusion when it comes to these kinds of rulings—and yet here we have three different lineups voting for three different results. If nothing else, that will only reinforce critiques that the justices invoke Purcell selectively.”
This case also revisits a 2013 Supreme Court decision that limited when states can require proof of citizenship for those registering to vote using federal forms. The Court then determined that states couldn’t prevent voters lacking such documents from casting ballots in federal elections if the federal form didn’t mandate proof.
Despite this, Republicans have argued that Congress lacks the authority to regulate states’ vote-by-mail systems or voter registration rules for presidential elections. Arizona, however, is permitted—and already does—require proof of citizenship for state and local elections.
The case also touched on a 2018 consent decree from a different lawsuit, which set up a backup system for those without documentary proof of citizenship. The 2022 law eliminated this fail-safe system. Previously, local election officials could verify an individual’s citizenship status using the state’s DMV database, allowing them to register to vote for federal offices even if they lacked immediate proof for state elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, over 40,000 voters had already been barred from participating in state and local elections due to the lack of proof of citizenship.
As the Supreme Court's decision reshapes the landscape of voting regulations in Arizona, the road ahead promises to be fraught with legal battles and electoral uncertainty. With November's election on the horizon, the effects of this ruling will likely ripple through the political arena, impacting how voters engage with the process and how election officials manage the upcoming polls.
Login