The Supreme Court will consider whether Arizona's laws requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and removing noncitizens from voter rolls within 90 days of an election violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Election experts caution that a ruling affirming a lower court's decision could create significant obstacles for states attempting to maintain accurate voter rolls, potentially making it impossible to remove ineligible individuals.
The legal challenge, RNC v. Mi Familia Vote, centers on two Arizona statutes. One requires prospective voters to provide documentation proving U.S. citizenship, while the other mandates the removal of noncitizen registrants from voter lists within 90 days before an election. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled these laws constituted voter suppression.
Oral arguments are scheduled for December. A coalition of election integrity groups, including the Center for Election Confidence, Inc., Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, Inc., and Honest Elections Project, filed an amicus brief arguing the Ninth Circuit's ruling is "absurd" and poses serious threats to states' rights to enforce voter qualifications.
These groups contend that while Congress can regulate federal election mechanics, states possess the constitutional authority to set and enforce voter eligibility requirements. They argue this power becomes ineffective if states cannot verify citizenship or remove ineligible voters. "Citizenship is a qualification for voting. If states are going to enforce that requirement, they have to be able to verify it," stated Justin Riemer, president & CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, in a statement. "And when officials find noncitizens on the voter rolls, they should be able to act before an election, not after."
The brief challenges the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the NVRA's 90-day pre-election period for systematic voter removal. The NVRA generally requires such programs to conclude at least 90 days before a federal election, with exceptions for voter-initiated removals, death, criminal conviction, or mental incapacity. The groups argue that non-citizenship is a distinct category, as these individuals were never eligible to register in the first place, and the NVRA's restriction is intended to prevent the erroneous removal of eligible voters, not to protect those who were never eligible.
"If the Ninth Circuit is right that the 90-day limitation on programs prohibits removal on these bases — because the statute has listed exceptions — States could never remove improperly registered individuals who fall within these categories, no matter when the removal happens or whether it is after a systematic inquiry," the brief stated. "Not just that, but these States could never remove these noncitizens who were never eligible to vote."
Concerns about noncitizens appearing on voter rolls have been highlighted in other states, with reports of discovery and purging in New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon cited as examples of the need for mechanisms to correct improper registrations. The groups argue that once an unlawful ballot is cast and counted, it cannot be undone.
Lisa Dixon, executive director of the Center for Election Confidence, emphasized the importance of election integrity: "American elections are for American citizens only. Period. We should all support Arizona ensuring non-citizens can’t register to vote and removing any non-citizens who end up on the voter lists."
The amici also disputed the Ninth Circuit's understanding of NVRA provisions regarding information necessary for states to assess voter eligibility and the definition of an "equivalent" state registration form. They argue the Ninth Circuit wrongly concluded that a voter's attestation of citizenship on a registration form is sufficient proof of eligibility and misinterpreted "equivalent" to mean virtually identical to the federal form.
"Once again, far-left activists are using the courts to twist federal law into a straitjacket that prevents states from securing their elections," said Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project. "The Honest Elections Project urges the Supreme Court to side with Arizona and preserve the tools states need to ensure that elections are decided only by American citizens."