The Republican National Committee (RNC) has taken a significant legal step by asking the Supreme Court to intervene and uphold an Arizona law mandating citizenship verification for voters registering with a state form. The law, which was enacted in 2022, is currently suspended due to a lower-court ruling. This legal battle unfolds as Arizona emerges as a pivotal battleground in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, following contentious debates over the state’s 2020 election results.
RNC asks Supreme Court to revive Arizona voter registration law https://t.co/2V4S4pQmtT
— The Hill (@thehill) August 10, 2024
Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama, received the RNC’s request to block the ruling that has temporarily halted the enforcement of the state law. This law requires that residents who register to vote using a state-issued form must show proof of citizenship. In contrast, those using a federal form are not required to provide such documentation, per the federal “motor-voter” law established in 1993.
The controversy intensified after a federal district judge declared that the 2022 law violated a 2018 settlement that Arizona reached with immigrant-rights advocates. However, the RNC, supported by Arizona state Republicans, argues that the new law should take precedence to ensure the integrity of elections.
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley emphasized the necessity of the law, stating, “Requiring proof of citizenship is common sense and fundamental to preserving the integrity of our elections – especially in our country’s most important presidential election.” He also expressed concerns that without this law, noncitizens might manage to register and vote, potentially undermining the votes of American citizens.
The urgency of this matter is underlined by Arizona’s need to finalize its election rules by August 22, the date set for printing its ballots. The state’s preparations could be significantly impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision, as it might necessitate changes in the content or tabulation of the ballots.
On the other side of the debate, immigration activists argue that noncitizen voting is extremely rare and does not affect national election outcomes to a significant degree. They believe the law poses unnecessary barriers to voter registration.
The case has seen a complex journey through the courts. After the district judge’s initial injunction against the law, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, only for another panel to reinstate it later. This back-and-forth has brought to the forefront the Purcell principle, which advises judicial caution in altering election procedures close to voting periods.
As this legal battle progresses, it highlights the ongoing national debate over voter registration requirements and the balance between preventing fraud and ensuring voter access. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will not only affect Arizona but could also set a precedent for how voter eligibility is verified across the United States.
