Last week, the Supreme Court put into effect part of a request set forth by the Republican National Committee, obligating Arizona to implement measures mandating citizens to present U.S. citizenship proof at the time of voter registration. This resolution is presumed to be the first one in a string of disputes related to the upcoming elections the court would preside over. The legal body greenlit one of three components of the corresponding Arizona law, with conservative justices being the majority vote.
Interestingly, the tally ended at 5-4 in favor of implementing little parts of the law, with ultra-conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the three liberal justices. The concise order issued by the court omitted any rationale behind the decision. However, three conservative justices — stalwarts Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — outrightly mentioned they would have given the okay to enforce all the three provisions contained within.
Arizona had seen a considerable turnout to register for federal elections, amounting to over 40,000 people. They did so without providing any proof of citizenship, leading state officials to categorize most of them as inactive voters. However, they do acknowledge that only a minor portion of these voters would come under the court’s directive.
Presidential elections always prove to be a critical event, as observed during the 2020 election duel between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, where Biden triumphed in Arizona with a margin of just over 10,000 votes. This statistical portrait brings the focus back onto the provision that permits state officials to refuse voter registrations using state-specific forms if the voter does not possess certifiable proof of citizenship.
However, the Supreme Court constrained from implementing other components within the law that would hinder citizens without verifying citizenship evidence from partaking in presidential elections either through mail or employing an alternate, federal registration document. The essence of the matter converges on a widely held yet unverified Republican assumption that claims non-citizen participation in U.S. elections.
Arizona’s law of 2022, which is currently under debate, hasn’t been put to action yet. This law took shape as a reaction to a Supreme Court judgment from 2013, which nullified a prior attempt to require a citizenship-proof mandate. The National Voter Registration Act, the federal law that the Biden administration argued was violated by the 2022 measures, necessitates those registering to vote in federal elections to affirm they are U.S. citizens, but it does away with the need for documentary evidence.
The Supreme Court’s inference during its 2013 judgement stated that the National Voter Registration Act does not permit states the leverage to incorporate any extra prerequisites into forms that citizens are obligated to complete for voting in federal elections. Post this judgment, Arizona went on to instate its proof-of-citizenship requirement, but only for the state elections, leaving federal elections untouched.
Effectively, this act brought into being a stratified registration process where a select group of prospective voters are permissible to vote solely in federal elections. The Biden administration disagreed with the new provisions that call for proof of citizenship either to vote for a presidential candidate or vote by post, provoking other plaintiffs, including voter rights groups, to concentrate their allegations over the state registration form itself.
On the other side of the argument, the law has been met with resistance from state officials such as Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who has chosen not to put into force the law. This law was a product of Republican efforts, but surprisingly, Fontes and other state leaders, including Attorney General Kris Mayes, are Democrats.
Following the objections, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and further, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment on August 1, rejecting any plea to reverse it. The Republican National Committee, supported by Republican state Legislature, mentioned in court documents that the lower court’s decision was an ‘overly broad dismissal of the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign prerogative to set qualifications for voters and shape their electoral participation.’
Fontes speculated that a significant fraction of the over 40,000 individuals who registered to cast their vote in federal elections might likely be students, armed service members, and Native Americans, who did not possess birth documentation at the time of voter registration. From this lot, only 5,000 voters registered for postal voting, revealed Fontes.
He rallied his effort to impede the Republican plea from being passed by the Supreme Court, with his legal team pointing out that the case surfaced mere weeks before the commencement of early voting. They vehemently argued that rejecting the lower court’s ruling would breed uncertainty for voters and election officials alike, consequently undermining the trustworthiness of Arizona’s electoral process.
Their argument culminated in the assertion that such a step might erode the public’s faith in the integrity of Arizona’s electoral processes, thereby posing certain risks to the democratic fabric of the state.
So, amidst this complex mix of legalese, political ideologies, and differing perspectives, the path to the November elections remains unclear. However, the commitment to safeguarding the voting rights of citizens and preserving the sanctity of the electoral process should remain steadfast across all quarters.