At Supreme Court, Republicans push stricter voting laws for Arizona

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Republican National Committee on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow enforcement of Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship laws during the presidential election in November.

Joined by Republican lawmakers, the committee asked the justices to let Arizona reject registration forms from voters without citizenship documentation and block those people from voting by mail or casting votes for president.

Republicans argued the lower court had forced Arizona to include on its voter rolls people who failed to meet minimum state-law requirements confirming their identity and citizenship.

“The RNC has an interest in having its members’ rights as voters not undermined by eleventh-hour changes to election laws,” the committee wrote in a brief before the court. They said that candidates and parties are harmed when their “chances of victory would be reduced.”

The request comes as Republicans have advanced unproven claims of voter fraud by noncitizen voting in U.S. elections. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections, but the bill is unlikely to pass the Democratic-led Senate.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting.

Under Arizona’s law, already registered voters must show a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license, tribal identification number or naturalization number to remain registered. County recorders are required to terminate any registration without verification.

A flurry of lawsuits filed by the Biden administration, Mi Familia Vota and other voting advocacy groups sued the state after the law passed in 2022. There was little rush for a judgment, however, because Arizona’s secretary of state refused to enforce the restrictions.

Voting advocacy groups say that requiring proof of citizenship provides significant barriers for voters. A recent survey found that 21.3 million American citizens lack access to required documents.

Challengers claimed that proof-of-citizenship requirements are barred under the National Voter Registration Act. In 2013, the court upheld this argument for federal election registrations.

Arizona applied its law to state-form applicants, arguing that the state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its elections.

Siding with the government’s arguments, a judge ruled that the proof-of-citizenship requirements were preempted by federal law.

The Republican National Committee and several representatives then intervened, asking for a final judgment on the provisions’ legality.

After a three-month bench trial, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the laws were constitutional and did not impose an undue burden on the right to vote as applied to state elections. Bolton upheld most of the law but excluded a birthplace requirement for registration forms.

One Ninth Circuit panel briefly revived those requirements — then another appeals panel ruled to keep the provisions on hold until challenges to the law are resolved. The second panel cited a principle from Purcell v. Gonzalez that prevents last-minute changes to election procedures.

Republicans argued the opposite at the Supreme Court, claiming that Purcell weighed in favor of enforcing the law.

“The district court’s injunction is an unprecedented abrogation of the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections,” the committee wrote.

The application was submitted to Justice Elena Kagan, who presides over emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit.

Voting advocacy groups were asked to respond to the application by Aug. 16. To give counties time to print ballots, Republicans said any ruling must come by Aug. 22.

This article was first published by Courthouse News Service and is republished under their terms of use.