In a landmark decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona can mandate proof of citizenship when registering new voters for future elections. However, in a significant move, the court denied a Republican request to prevent over 40,000 already registered individuals from voting in the upcoming November election, despite their lack of citizenship documentation.
The court issued this ruling through a succinct one-paragraph order without an accompanying explanation. The decision emerged from an emergency appeal filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC). While the ruling may not drastically influence the presidential race in Arizona, it sets a new precedent by allowing states to require proof of citizenship for new voter registrations through their state systems.
Voting rights experts noted that Arizona stands alone in enforcing such a requirement for prospective voters. The decision underscores the stark division within the Supreme Court concerning partisan disputes over election laws. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch expressed that they would have supported the full appeal from the RNC, which could have resulted in thousands of Arizonans being barred from voting due to lack of citizenship proof.
This stance contrasts sharply with a 2013 opinion penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 7-2 majority, Scalia asserted that Arizona and other states must “accept and use” the federal registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This form requires voters to sign a sworn statement confirming their citizenship without needing to show a birth certificate or passport.
Arizona currently has approximately 41,000 voters registered using this federal form. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes announced that “Arizona’s law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration is reinstated. Counties will reject new state forms missing documented proof of citizenship. Voters may still register using the National Mail Voter Registration Form, which requires an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury.”
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that they would have entirely denied the RNC’s appeal. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, representing a coalition of 24 Republican-led states, hailed the decision as a “great victory for the rule of law and the integrity of our elections.” He emphasized the necessity of citizenship proof to ensure lawful elections.
Conversely, Danielle Lang of the Campaign Legal Center voiced disappointment, arguing that the court’s decision alters the rules too close to the election. “If the court is going to weigh in on eleventh-hour election law challenges, it needs to enforce the principle against last-minute changes evenhandedly. This decision fails to do that,” Lang stated.
Historically, the justices tend to disfavor legal challenges that seek to modify voting regulations shortly before an election. In this instance, Arizona’s Republican leaders aimed to implement a new law disallowing Arizonans from voting if they did not present a birth certificate or passport during registration. A federal judge in Phoenix had previously blocked the 2022 law, citing its conflict with the federal “motor voter” law.
Afterward, Arizona established a dual-track voter registration system. Residents registering to vote in state and local elections had to show citizenship proof, whereas those using the federal form only needed to sign a sworn statement. These “federal only voters” could vote solely for congressional and presidential candidates. In a 2018 consent decree, the state agreed to grant full registration to new voters whose citizenship and residence could be verified through its motor vehicles department database.
However, in 2022, the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted a law prohibiting voters who did not provide proof of citizenship from participating in presidential elections. The Justice Department and voting rights advocates challenged this law, leading to a 10-day trial in Phoenix where U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the new requirement. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her order by a 2-1 vote.
In response, the RNC, the Arizona Senate, and the state assembly’s speaker filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on August 8, arguing that the Arizona Legislature holds the ultimate authority over voter eligibility in state elections. Yet, the Arizona attorney general and secretary of state, both Democrats, urged the court to reject the appeal, warning that changing the registration rules would lead to “chaos and confusion.” They highlighted that newly registered voters using the federal form and the 42,301 federal-only registrants would be disenfranchised in the presidential election.