Biden Administration Calls on Supreme Court to Halt Controversial Arizona Voting Law

PHOENIX — The Biden administration has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Justices to reject a request from Arizona’s Republican leaders to enforce a controversial law that mandates proof of citizenship for voters. The case arises in the lead-up to the highly anticipated standoff between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the National Voter Registration Act supersedes a state law passed in 2022, which imposes restrictions on voter eligibility. She emphasized that while states can regulate their elections, Congress holds the ultimate authority over eligibility for federal elections.

At the heart of the Republican filing is a plea to permit enforcement of the state’s law while its constitutionality is contested in court. This request could directly impact over 41,000 Arizonans who registered to vote under the federal law that requires only a sworn statement of eligibility, not proof of citizenship.

A ruling favoring Arizona’s GOP leaders would effectively disenfranchise these voters from participating in the presidential election. Historical context adds weight to the situation; in 2020, Biden won the state by a margin of just 10,457 votes. According to legal filings, the likelihood of these disenfranchised voters supporting the Republican candidate is low, as data indicates that only 14.3% of federal-only voters identify as Republicans.

Legal complexities arise from the interaction between the federal voter registration process and state laws. The 2022 state law mandates that county recorders utilize specific databases to verify citizenship for those registering under the federal form. If verification fails, individuals are required to provide documented proof of citizenship, which, if not completed, bars them from voting in presidential elections.

In contrast, the state has already conceded that it cannot restrict these voters from participating in congressional elections, due to oversight by Congress on the timing and manner of such races. However, the GOP leaders contend that restrictions for presidential voting are permissible at the state level.

Prelogar countered this perspective, citing Supreme Court precedents that affirm Congress’s power to regulate presidential elections. She noted, for instance, existing federal laws that prevent coercion and threats during presidential voting. The Solicitor General reiterated that presidential elections have a unique significance for national interest, and therefore, federal regulations do not infringe on state powers.

Furthermore, the Constitutional amendments following the Civil War enhanced Congress’s ability to enforce voting rights laws, as highlighted in a ruling last year by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton who blocked the enforcement of the state law, citing potential discriminatory impacts on voter participation.

The legal arguments also illustrate the partisan dimensions of the case. The Arizona Republican Party asserted that the states possess the authority to appoint presidential electors, essentially framing the voters’ role as indirect. This view was echoed by the attorney general of Kansas, who argued that barring enforcement of the state law would harm Arizona’s sovereignty.

On the opposing side, Attorney General Kris Mayes of Arizona underscored the potential instability of implementing such changes just three months before the election, stressing her role as the state’s representative in federal court against the Republican leaders’ claims.

Additionally, filings from the Democratic parties suggest that those contesting the lower court rulings have not demonstrated the required “irreparable harm” necessary for the Supreme Court’s intervention at this time.

This case revolves around more than voter eligibility; it touches on the methods of voting as well. The 2022 law additionally stipulates that federal-only registrants must vote in person, precluding mail-in voting options, which adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal debate.

As of now, the Supreme Court has not indicated when it will decide whether to address these requests from the Republican leadership, leaving a crucial component of the electoral process uncertain as Election Day approaches.