U.S. Supreme Court Set to Deliberate on Controversial 2022 Arizona Election Law

The Biden administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject appeals from Republican legislative leaders who seek to prevent individuals without proof of citizenship from voting in the upcoming presidential election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

In a new brief filed on Friday, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that existing lower court rulings correctly interpreted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) as taking precedence over a 2022 Arizona law that restricts voting eligibility. She emphasized that, while states can regulate their elections, Congress has the exclusive authority to set eligibility criteria for federal elections.

The legal actions initiated by House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen do not directly challenge the intent of the 2022 law but request it be enforced while the legality remains in dispute. This request could immediately disenfranchise over 41,000 Arizonans, who registered to vote using a federal form not requiring proof of citizenship, only a sworn statement of eligibility.

A ruling favoring the GOP leaders would effectively bar those voters from participating in the presidential election. Notably, Biden narrowly defeated Trump four years ago by a mere 10,457 votes, and legal representatives for the plaintiffs argue that the votes of federal-only registrants may not favor the Republican candidate.

Statistics reveal that while Republicans make up about 34% of Arizona’s registered voters, only 14.3% of federal-only voters identified as Republican. The breakdown includes 27.4% Democrats and 53.6% listed as “party not designated.”

The crux of the dispute centers on the relationship between the NVRA and the 2022 state law. The NVRA permits registration using a federal form, which was previously deemed sufficient by the Supreme Court. However, the 2022 law requires verification of citizenship through specific databases. If records cannot confirm citizenship, voters must provide additional documentation, effectively disqualifying those who fail to do so.

The state has already conceded it cannot block these individuals from voting in congressional elections due to constitutional guidelines granting Congress authority over such matters. However, Toma, Petersen, and the Republican National Committee assert that this reasoning does not extend to presidential races, claiming states possess the power to impose restrictions.

Prelogar countered this argument by citing previous court decisions affirming Congress’s regulatory power over presidential elections. She noted that presidential elections represent a national interest, with Congress empowered to mitigate corruption in the electoral process.

Prelogar also highlighted historical amends that grant Congress the authority to address issues like voter discrimination. This context echoes Judge Susan Bolton’s earlier ruling that blocked Arizona from enforcing the disputed law, citing its potential to disproportionately harm various voter demographics.

The partisan nature of the legal contention remains evident. The Arizona Republican Party contends that Arizonans aren’t technically voting for a president but for electors who subsequently make that decision. This position is similarly supported by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who warns of damaging effects to Arizona’s sovereignty should the 2022 law not be enforced.

On the opposing side, Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes argues against alterations to the voting system just months before the general election, describing such changes as destabilizing. She stressed that her office—and not the GOP leaders—represents Arizona’s interests in the federal court.

Furthermore, filings from state and national Democratic parties contend that the Republicans’ requests lack grounding, failing to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm” necessary to prompt judicial intervention.

In addition to voting for president, the 2022 law imposes restrictions requiring federal-only registrants to vote in person, disallowing mail-in ballots for congressional races. Prelogar noted that, while Arizona can determine the extent of mail voting, it cannot selectively restrict this right based on registration method.

The Supreme Court has yet to announce if it will hear the case or decide on the enforcement of the 2022 law for this electoral cycle.