In a significant victory for election integrity advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona can enforce its proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections, but not for congressional or presidential elections. The decision, handed down on August 22, 2024, permits Arizona to require voters to provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote in state and local elections. However, this mandate will not extend to federal elections, where a different set of rules under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) applies.
The Supreme Court's decision comes after years of legal battles surrounding Arizona's law, which was originally passed by voters in 2004. The law's supporters argue that it is a crucial measure to prevent voter fraud by ensuring that only U.S. citizens participate in elections. However, opponents claim that the law disproportionately impacts minority groups and could lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.
🚨BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court REJECTS key parts of GOP motion to restore voter suppression law for 2024. A MAJOR victory for voting rights and Arizona voters.
Proud of the work my team did to secure a big court victory at this critical time. https://t.co/nsXzORw1iY
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) August 22, 2024
In its ruling, the Court maintained a distinction between state and federal election procedures, highlighting the limits of state authority under the NVRA. The NVRA, also known as the "Motor Voter Act," requires states to use a standardized federal form for voter registration in federal elections, which only asks applicants to declare their citizenship under penalty of perjury without requiring additional documentation. Arizona had sought to impose stricter standards, demanding proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, as part of its voter registration process.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes praised the ruling as a win for state sovereignty and election integrity, emphasizing that states should have the power to safeguard their elections. "This decision affirms Arizona's right to protect the integrity of our state and local elections," Mayes said in a statement. "We will continue to ensure that only eligible citizens have a say in our democratic process."
Supreme Court Orders Enforcement of Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law
Some good news for the integrity of Arizona's elections. More still needs to be done. https://t.co/LLHjJacfu6
— Randy DeSoto (@RandyDeSoto) August 23, 2024
Opponents of the law, including voting rights organizations and civil liberties groups, have expressed concern that the ruling could set a precedent for other states to implement similar restrictions. They argue that such measures could create barriers to voting for certain groups, particularly minorities, the elderly, and low-income individuals, who may find it more difficult to obtain the necessary documentation.
In 2013, the Supreme Court had struck down an earlier version of Arizona's law that attempted to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections. The Court ruled that states could not unilaterally add requirements to the federal voter registration form, which is governed by the NVRA. This latest decision reaffirms that limitation but allows Arizona to impose additional requirements for state and local elections, provided they do not conflict with federal law.
The ruling is expected to have significant implications not only for Arizona but also for other states that have considered similar measures. Several states, including Kansas and Georgia, have passed or proposed laws requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. These states will likely look to Arizona's experience as a precedent as they seek to implement their own voting restrictions.
Critics argue that these laws are part of a broader effort to suppress voter turnout among groups that typically lean Democratic. However, supporters contend that such measures are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Despite numerous studies showing that voter fraud is exceedingly rare, the issue remains a deeply divisive and politically charged topic in the United States.
