The legal battles surrounding the 2024 election have intensified, with Arizona emerging as a key battleground. Last week, the Supreme Court made a significant decision that could impact voter registration across the state. The court’s order allows a new Arizona law to go into effect, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote—a move that has raised concerns about the integrity and accessibility of the upcoming election.
This development comes as the Supreme Court revisits an issue it had seemingly settled over a decade ago. By reopening the matter now, after voter registration has already begun, the justices are feeding into a narrative that noncitizens pose a threat to U.S. elections. Critics argue this narrative is unfounded and dangerous, stoking fears and potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.
The case in question, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, centers on the Republican National Committee’s request for emergency changes to Arizona’s voter registration laws. This lawsuit not only threatens to prevent tens of thousands of eligible Arizonans from casting their ballots, but it also perpetuates the debunked claim that noncitizens are voting in significant numbers. As the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, noted: “There is no good evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to actually shift the outcome of elections.”
The court’s unsigned order allows Arizona’s new law, which requires proof of citizenship for new voter registrations, to take effect. This move suggests that the conservative majority on the court, including three Trump appointees, may ultimately strike down a portion of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) when the case is fully reviewed next year. The NVRA, a critical federal voting rights law, was designed to standardize voter registration procedures and remove barriers to voting. The court’s potential reversal of this precedent could have significant implications for voter access nationwide.
While the court granted the RNC’s request to enforce the citizenship documentation requirement for new registrations, it stopped short of allowing the removal of over 40,000 voters already registered without such documentation. However, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have supported this more drastic measure.
The timing of this intervention is particularly concerning, given the surge in voter registration following President Joe Biden’s decision not to seek re-election. Nonpartisan registration groups have reported tens of thousands of new registrants, many of whom are young voters under the age of 34. Arizona, a key battleground state, could see significant impacts from the court’s ruling as these new voters navigate the changing registration requirements.
Arizona’s history with voter registration laws is complex. In 2004, the state enacted Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship to register to vote. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the federal NVRA preempted Arizona’s documentation requirements. The court’s recent decision to revisit this issue signals a potential shift in the interpretation of federal voting rights protections.
Critics argue that Arizona’s new law is not only burdensome but also unnecessary, as states already have safeguards to prevent noncitizens from voting. For example, states can cross-reference DMV records, jury duty records, and Social Security records to ensure that only eligible voters are on the rolls. The NVRA’s oath requirement has historically provided a reliable means for citizens without immediate access to documentation to register and vote, while still upholding the integrity of the electoral process.
As the 2024 election season heats up, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling could reverberate far beyond Arizona, potentially influencing voter turnout and election outcomes in one of the most closely watched states in the nation.