Arizona’s Voter Forms Face Citizenship Proof Mandate: SCOTUS Weighs In

The United States Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, allowing Arizona to implement a contentious voter registration law just weeks before the upcoming election. This decision effectively enables the state to demand proof of citizenship from residents wishing to register to vote.

In a closely divided 5-4 decision, the high court ruled in favor of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and key Arizona legislative leaders. The court reinstated aspects of the law that require state voter registration forms to include proof of citizenship, a contentious issue that has sparked considerable debate. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the dissenting liberal justices.

“This is a major victory for election integrity,” said RNC Chairman Michael Whatley. He claimed the ruling safeguards American elections for citizens, contrasting the RNC’s position with what he described as the Democrats’ attempts to weaken election safeguards.

Arizona’s voter registration requirements, established by Proposition 200 in 2004, mandate proof of citizenship. However, this state law contrasts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows for federal voter registration forms without such proof. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled in 2013 that Arizona cannot reject these federal forms, leading to discrepancies in the voting process.

The division has resulted in a situation where citizens who validate their citizenship can participate in all elections, while those who do not can only vote in federal elections, despite affirming their citizenship under penalty of perjury. Current estimates indicate around 32,000 voters in Arizona lack the necessary documentation.

The law, which the Arizona legislature passed in 2022, aims to prevent non-citizens from voting. After various voting rights groups challenged this law, a lower court ruled against parts of it, prompting the RNC to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

The court did not reinstate the provision concerning mail-in voting for presidential elections. Dissenting conservative justices indicated they would have granted the full request, while liberal justices opposed the ruling entirely.

Allegations of widespread non-citizen voting, often championed by former President Trump, lack substantial evidence, with research suggesting such occurrences are minimal. However, Arizona remains a focal point for election denial narratives, evidenced by attempts to contest the 2020 election results.

Critics of the ruling, including the Campaign Legal Center, expressed concern regarding its timing and potential voter confusion. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court is upending longstanding rules on the eve of an election,” said CLC spokesperson Bruce Spiva.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes acknowledged the ruling, stating counties would adhere to the new requirements, despite concerns about potential voter confusion. He emphasized that voters can still register using a federal mail registration form, which requires an affirmation of citizenship.

Election expert Rick Hasen condemned the ruling, labeling the reinstated law as unnecessary and detrimental to eligible voters. “These documentary proof of citizenship laws matter a lot,” he asserted, warning of their potential to disenfranchise thousands of voters.

Advocates for voting rights have rallied against the law, claiming it will disproportionately impact younger voters, particularly those in college settings. Despite the ruling, groups dedicated to expanding voter access vow to continue their fight.

The Arizona Republican Party celebrated the court’s ruling, framing it as a critical measure to uphold electoral integrity. In stark contrast, progressive advocacy groups condemned the legislation as a perpetuation of false narratives surrounding voter fraud.