WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday partially granted a request by the Republican National Committee for Arizona to enact measures requiring people to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
The justices allowed one of three provisions of the state law to be enforced in what could be one of several election-related disputes coming before the court ahead of the November election.
The vote was 5-4 to allow limited enforcement of the law, with a majority of conservative justices. A conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in the dissent. The court, in a brief order, did not explain its reasoning.
Three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — said they would have allowed all three provisions to take effect.
More than 40,000 people have registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona without providing proof of citizenship, though state officials say most are inactive voters and a small number will be affected. In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump in Arizona by just 10,000 votes.
The rule the court allowed the state to implement requires officials to reject attempts to register to vote using the state’s own registration form if the person lacks documentary proof of citizenship.
But the court has suspended separate rules barring those without proof of citizenship from voting in presidential elections or by mail if they register to vote using a different, federal registration form.
The case touches on a widespread, unverified Republican talking point that non-citizens routinely vote in US elections.
The Biden administration challenged the 2022 measures, saying they violate a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act. Those registering to vote in federal elections must confirm that they are US citizens, but no documentary evidence is required.
Arizona’s 2022 law, which was never implemented, was a response to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated an earlier attempt to impose a proof-of-residency requirement. At the time, the Supreme Court held that the National Voter Registration Act precluded adding additional requirements to the forms people must fill out to vote in federal elections.
After the ruling, Arizona implemented a proof of citizenship requirement for state elections, but not federal elections. It effectively created a tiered registration process whereby some prospective voters could only register to vote in federal elections.
While the Biden administration opposed the new rules requiring proof of citizenship to vote for the president or to vote by mail, other plaintiffs, including voting rights groups, brought their own challenge centered on the state registration form.
State officials, including Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, have refused to enforce the law. The legislation was passed by Republicans, but Fontes and other state leaders, including Attorney General Chris Mays, are Democrats.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the ruling on August 1.
The RNC, joined by Republican leaders in the state legislature, said in court documents that the lower court ruling “unprecedentedly abrogates the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine voter qualifications and structural participation in its elections.”
Fontes previously said many of the more than 40,000 people who registered to vote in federal elections were students, service members and Native Americans who did not have a birth certificate when they registered to vote. Only about 5,000 voters had registered to vote by post.
He urged the Supreme Court not to accept the Republican request, which his lawyers noted in court documents came weeks before early voting began.
Blocking the lower court ruling would “create uncertainty for voters and election officials alike, and undermine public confidence in the integrity of Arizona’s election processes,” his attorneys said.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger, representing the Biden administration, said in her court filing that “judicial intervention at this point would undermine the orderly administration of the election and disenfranchise thousands of voters already registered to vote.”
