Supreme Court partially reinstates Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote

The U.S. Supreme Court partially reinstated Arizona’s state law requiring proof-of-citizenship for voting.
The 5-4 ruling means Arizona election officials can reject an application for state voter registration if the person does not present documentary proof of citizenship.
Other parts of the law remain on hold. The court left on hold part of the law that said a person who already registered to vote without providing proof of citizenship is not allowed to vote in presidential elections. The order also said the part of the law preventing a person who registered to vote only in federal elections from receiving an early ballot by mail remains on hold.
The order does not take up a full page and also does not include reasonings behind the decisions.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application from the Republican National Committee in full, allowing all provisions of the law to be enforced. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application, the order said.
The decision comes after the Republican National Committee asked the Supreme Court to take emergency action on the law.
The 2022 Arizona voting law is currently being litigated. A federal district court in Arizona blocked the law. Then, after an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, part of the district court’s order was put on temporary hold.
The block against the law was reinstated after a panel of judges looked at the case, and then, the Republican National Committee sought emergency relief from the country’s highest court.
“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,” wrote attorneys for the Republican National Committee in the emergency request.
The request said they needed emergency relief because ballots will soon be printed.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes asked the Supreme Court to deny the Republican National Committee’s request because he said “a stay this close to an election will create chaos and confusion, and in turn undermine the credibility of our elections.”
Fontes said 42,301 Arizona voters are only registered federally and would be impacted if the court lifted the hold.
The future of the law will play out as the litigation continues.
The Justice Department sued to block the law in July 2022, shortly after it was passed. The suit dealt with the provisions of the law requiring voters who registered to vote with a federal form to show proof of citizenship. The form requires a declaration of citizenship under penalty of perjury not documentary proof of citizenship.
The suit said the National Voter Registration Act prevents Arizona from enforcing those provisions. This part of the law remains blocked for now after the Supreme Court’s response.
The Arizona law was initially passed in 2022 and signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey.
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley called Thursday’s ruling “a major victory for election integrity” in a statement.
“While Democrats have worked to undermine basic election safeguards and make it easier for non-citizens to vote, we have fought tooth and nail to preserve citizenship requirements, see the law enforced, and secure our elections,” said Whatley. “The Supreme Court has sided with the RNC, and the American people, to protect the vote in November.”
“We are disappointed that the supreme court is upending longstanding rules on the eve of an election that will clearly cause voter confusion. Free and fair elections rely on every citizen being able to cast a ballot and the fight is far from over,” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for Campaign Legal Center which helped challenge the law, told The Guardian.
Utah was one of 24 states that filed a brief in support of the Republican National Committee.
“The right to police elections involves a core aspect of State sovereignty,” said the brief, then quoting from a previous case, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”