Supreme Court Rules Arizona Can Temporarily Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

The United States Supreme Court has permitted Arizona to enforce a contentious voter registration law just weeks before the upcoming elections. The ruling, issued on Thursday, allows the state to require proof of citizenship for voters using state registration forms.

This 5-4 decision is seen as a significant victory for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and state legislative leaders, including House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen. The court’s order, which was unsigned, reinstates a measure that had been challenged in federal court.

Details surrounding the court’s reasoning remain undisclosed, a common practice for emergency rulings. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett aligned with the court’s liberal justices in dissent, while the majority supported the Republican viewpoint.

RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the ruling as vital for election integrity, asserting that American elections should be decided exclusively by American citizens. He criticized Democratic efforts to ease registration processes, which he believes undermine electoral safeguards.

The state law that mandates proof of citizenship was established through Proposition 200, passed by voters in 2004. However, it conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which permits the use of federal registration forms without such proof. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 confirmed that Arizona must accept these federal forms.

This legal conflict results in two classes of voters in Arizona: those who provide proof of citizenship can vote in all elections, whereas others, who attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury, are limited to federal elections. Approximately 32,000 voters in this latter category exist in the state, but Thursday’s ruling does not affect their voting rights.

The Arizona law, enacted in 2022, was designed to prevent non-citizen voting, leading to legal challenges from several voting rights organizations. A lower court previously blocked a provision requiring proof of citizenship for voters using state registration forms and another barring those using federal forms from voting by mail in presidential elections.

Despite the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the citizenship proof requirement, it declined to reinstate the mail-in voting restriction. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch expressed a desire to go further in supporting the RNC’s request.

The ruling has drawn criticism from various advocacy groups. The Campaign Legal Center expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s timing, predicting voter confusion as a consequence. The organization emphasized the need for accessible voting, claiming the fight over these regulations is far from over.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes acknowledged the changes brought by the ruling, which mandates counties to reject new state registration forms without proof of citizenship. He voiced concerns about the potential voter confusion resulting from such last-minute adjustments.

Election expert Rick Hasen criticized the reinstated law for its potential to disenfranchise eligible voters. He noted the significant implications of proof-of-citizenship laws compared to voter ID regulations, which often do not substantially impact turnout.

In contrast, the Arizona Republican Party celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that it helps protect electoral integrity from non-citizen interference. AZGOP chairwoman Gina Swoboda described it as a triumph for voters demanding secure elections.

Conversely, progressive advocacy group Our Voice, Our Vote condemned the decision, arguing that such legislation focuses on perpetuating the myth of widespread voter fraud rather than ensuring election integrity. Executive Director Sena Mohammed reaffirmed their commitment to empowering marginalized voters despite these setbacks.