Vote Dilution: A Federal Judge Questions the Impact on Arizona’s Voting Rights

A federal judge is poised to dismiss a lawsuit questioning Arizona’s adherence to the National Voting Rights Act. The case stems from a June lawsuit filed by three registered voters in Maricopa County, among them Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda. They allege that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’s inaction in removing ineligible voters from the state’s rolls compromises the integrity of their votes.

U.S. District Judge Dominic Lanza has expressed skepticism about whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated a legitimate injury sufficient to grant them standing in court. During a recent hearing, Lanza pointed out that the claims do not appear to infringe upon the plaintiffs’ right to vote directly.

Scot Mussi, the lead plaintiff, represented by attorney Dallin Holt, contends that the real issue lies in the dilution of their votes rather than a direct violation of voting rights. Holt asserted that this dilution erodes public confidence in the electoral process, effectively discouraging civic engagement.

The plaintiffs cite data indicating that Arizona’s voter rolls may include between 500,000 and 1,270,000 ineligible voters. They based their claims on information from the U.S. Census Bureau and various state and county records, pointing to discrepancies in registration rates across multiple counties.

While Lanza acknowledged that over-registration is a concern, he emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear connection between this over-registration and an actual dilution of votes. He questioned the relevance of alleged harms in relation to specific counties, prompting arguments about the broader implications.

Legal precedent necessitates that for a claim of vote dilution to be valid, it must demonstrate specific harm to a defined group of voters to the advantage of another. Holt’s position directly challenges this requirement.

The Secretary of State has countered these claims, arguing that the existence of extra names on voter rolls does not inherently lead to ballots being cast by ineligible individuals. Arizona has reportedly removed a number of ineligible voters at a higher rate than the national average, according to Fontes’s motion to dismiss.

Kara Karlson from the state attorney general’s office highlighted concerns regarding the reliability of the plaintiffs’ data. She explained that changes in residency can temporarily reflect inaccuracies in voter registrations, complicating assessments of eligibility.

Despite numerous assertions of voter fraud in previous elections, no analogous claims have emerged regarding the most recent election in November. Still, Holt insisted there is a present harm resulting from the alleged mismanagement of voter rolls.

Lanza challenged Holt to articulate a specific, tangible injury rather than an abstract sense of unease. As the proceedings continue, Lanza has indicated that he will issue a definitive ruling in the near future.