RNC asks Supreme Court to revive Arizona’s citizenship check for voters

The Republican National Committee asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to step in and revive an Arizona law that requires officials to verify citizenship for some people registering to vote using a state form.

The RNC asked Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, to block a lower-court ruling that has put the state law on hold.

Arizona is shaping up as one of the critical states in the 2024 presidential election, and has been buffeted by lingering questions over the state’s 2020 count, which saw President Biden win the state over former President Donald Trump.

At issue in the case is a state law, enacted two years ago, that requires residents who register to vote using a state-issued form to prove citizenship. Those who register using a federal form, in compliance with the 1993 motor-voter law, don’t have to show documentary proof of citizenship.

Under the 2022 law, any voter who registered via a state form and doesn’t show proof of citizenship before casting an initial ballot should have their vote rejected.

A federal district judge ruled the law violated a 2018 settlement Arizona reached with immigrant-rights advocates.

But the RNC, joined by state Republicans, said the 2022 law takes precedence.

“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,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said.

He said if the court doesn’t step in, noncitizens may end up being able to sneak onto the rolls and cast ballots, nullifying the votes of American citizens.

The RNC said Arizona needs to have a final decision on what rules it will follow this election by Aug. 22, which is when it prints its ballots.

The state says it would have to adjust what appears on its ballots or change how they are tabulated, depending on the court’s ruling.

Immigration-activists say noncitizen voting is rare and too minimal to affect the outcome of national elections.

The legal argument before the justices seems to center on how the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handled matters.

After the district judge issued an injunction, one three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit stayed the injunction. Then another three-judge panel revived the injunction.

The RNC said the 9th Circuit’s reversal violates what’s known as the Purcell principle, which urges judges to show caution in upending election proceedings in the period just before voting.