In a pivotal 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant decision regarding Arizona’s controversial voter registration law, H.B. 2492, which mandates proof of citizenship for those registering to vote using the state’s form. This ruling strikes at the heart of the ongoing debate between federal oversight and state sovereignty in the realm of voting rights.
The dispute centers on Arizona’s law, enacted in 2022, which requires residents to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote with the state-provided form. However, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) dictates that states must “accept and use” a standard federal form that does not require such proof; instead, voters swear under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. The federal government, along with private plaintiffs, challenged Arizona’s law, arguing that it conflicts with and is superseded by the NVRA.
Arizona’s H.B. 2492 introduced stricter requirements for voter registration:
- Federal Form: The law directed county officials to verify U.S. citizenship for individuals using the federal form. If verification couldn’t be achieved, the applicants were required to provide proof of citizenship to vote for president or by mail.
- State Form: The law also mandated that anyone registering with the Arizona state form must submit proof of citizenship.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona’s legislative leaders appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate the full law. The Court’s decision was split:
- State Form Enforcement: The Court allowed Arizona to enforce the provision of the law requiring proof of citizenship for those registering with the state form.
- Federal Form Restriction: However, the Court did not restore the part of the law that would have barred those using the federal form from voting in presidential elections or by mail without proof of citizenship.
This nuanced decision highlights the Court’s delicate balancing act. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch favored fully reinstating the law, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed it, seeking to maintain the federal district court’s decision that struck down the law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not disclose their votes, but their support was crucial in partially reviving the state form provision.
This ruling, issued just before Arizona begins printing ballots for the upcoming election, grants Arizona election officials the authority to reject voter registration applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship, provided they use the state form. This decision underscores the ongoing tension between state-specific voting regulations and federal oversight intended to ensure broad voter access.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling partially upholds Arizona’s stringent voter registration requirements, reinforcing the state’s authority to demand proof of citizenship on its form, while maintaining federal protections for those using the federal form. This decision marks a significant moment in the evolving landscape of voting rights and state sovereignty in the United States.
Sources: