Conservatives Erupt Over Ninth Circuit’s Decision Allowing Noncitizens to Vote

By Daniel Stefanski

Arizona conservatives are voicing strong discontent after a recent federal appeals court decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a previous opinion from its own panel, which had initially upheld Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship for state voter registration. This new ruling now permits individuals to register to vote in Arizona using state or federal forms without showing proof of citizenship.

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen condemned the decision, stating, “This is just another example of why the radical Ninth Circuit is one of the most overturned circuits in the nation. They routinely engage in judicial warfare to carry out their extremist liberal agenda that’s contrary to the laws our citizens elected us to implement. We will seek assistance from the Supreme Court to ensure only American citizens are voting in our elections. If this principle is not followed, democracy as we know it, and as our Founding Fathers intended, is in jeopardy.”

The Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus attributed the lawsuit to activists opposing laws passed in 2022 by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which required documentation to confirm legal citizenship for voting.

Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also criticized the Ninth Circuit’s decision, stating, “This opinion from two radical judges on the Ninth Circuit is a travesty of law and to the legal process, overturning a ruling issued just last week by the same court. We are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly intervene and reverse this poorly reasoned decision on appeal.”

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club played a significant role in the development and passage of HB 2492, one of the laws under dispute.

In the Ninth Circuit’s latest order, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay dissented from his colleagues, writing, “Motions for reconsideration of a motions panel’s order are not meant to be a second bite at the apple. On the contrary, they are highly irregular and strongly disfavored, primarily appropriate if there have been ‘[c]hanges in legal or factual circumstances’ since the motions panel addressed the issue.”

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.