SCOTUS delivers split decision on AZ’s voter law: What it means for Nov. election

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a fragmented decision on Thursday concerning Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, while legal challenges continue. The ruling allows the state to maintain its proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration but does not enforce the provisions that would bar voters from participating in presidential elections or voting by mail without such proof.

Arizona has mandated proof of citizenship for voter registration since 2004. In 2013, the Supreme Court decided that federal law, which allows voters to use a federal form that does not require proof of citizenship, supersedes state laws like Arizona’s. This means that while standard registration forms require proof of citizenship, voters who are aware of the federal form option can avoid this requirement.

In 2022, Arizona passed a new election integrity law stipulating that proof of citizenship would be required not only for registration but also for voting in presidential elections and by mail. The law faced legal challenges from groups advocating for expanded mail-in and early voting options. A lower court judge issued an injunction blocking the law, which is now under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) requested the Supreme Court to lift this injunction, aiming for the law to be enforced during the 2024 elections while the case continues.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling was split. The Court allowed the provision requiring proof of citizenship for state registration forms to remain in effect but did not lift the lower court’s injunction on the requirements for presidential and mail-in voting. The justices did not provide detailed opinions, leaving uncertainty about the final stance on the legal issues.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh were pivotal, supporting the proof of citizenship requirement for state registration but opposing the enforcement of the additional voting restrictions. They may still address these restrictions in a future ruling.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with libertarian Justice Neil Gorsuch, voted in favor of Arizona’s law on all fronts. Conversely, the remaining justices, including the three liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, opposed the law. Barrett’s position might shift in the final decision, expected potentially in late 2025.

Ambassador Ken Blackwell, chair of the Center for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute, commented on the ruling, stating, “Today’s split decision shows that election integrity continues to win. We will continue the fight to make it easy to vote but hard to cheat, and hope to show a majority of the justices that all of these aspects of Arizona law are completely legal ways to safeguard the ballot box.”

The case is registered as RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, No. 24A164 in the Supreme Court.