The Republican National Committee (RNC) made a plea to the Supreme Court on August 19, aiming to block 41,000 voters in Arizona from casting their ballots this November, citing a lack of U.S. citizenship proof. This move underscores the critical nature of Arizona's role in the upcoming presidential race—a state that narrowly swung in favor of President Joe Biden by just over 10,000 votes in the previous election. This legal maneuver is part of a broader case known as RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, with Mi Familia Vota being an advocacy organization committed to voter mobilization across Arizona and other states.
The dispute centers around two pieces of legislation passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2022—H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243—which mandate that individuals registering to vote must provide adequate evidence of citizenship such as a birth certificate. These laws further compel county officials to verify citizenship and remove noncitizens from voter registries. However, these requirements were halted on May 2 by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton who referenced both the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) or Motor Voter Law and prior judiciary decisions, pausing the enforcement due to concerns about its compliance with federal law.
Get the latest, most crucial news stories on the web – sent straight to your inbox for FREE as soon as they hit! Sign up for WayneDupree.com Email News Alerts in just 30 seconds!
A split decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bolton’s ruling, stating that while Congress has aimed to simplify voter registration through federal statutes like the NVRA, it does not allow for state legislatures to override these federal guidelines with more stringent voter qualification criteria.
Despite this setback, the RNC argues that federal intervention undermines Arizona's legislative authority over its elections and insists that adherence to such federal mandates would lead to confusion among voters—a violation of what is known as the Purcell Principle. This principle suggests changes in election rules close to an election risk causing disruption and should be avoided.
However, this interpretation has been contested by those opposing the RNC’s stance, suggesting instead that not enforcing these state laws could result in greater confusion and unfairness if certain groups are disenfranchised because of these last-minute legal battles.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and the U.S. Department of Justice have both opposed the RNC's application with Fontes emphasizing the potential chaos that could ensue from altering election procedures so close to voting commencement. The Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that since federal law preempts state law where there is conflict, especially concerning voter eligibility for presidential elections or mail-in voting requirements, it is unlikely that RNC’s appeal will hold merit before the Supreme Court.
With early voting poised to begin shortly in Arizona, all eyes are now on how swiftly—and how decisively—the Supreme Court will address this contentious issue amidst growing concerns about voter access and electoral integrity.
The dispute centers around two pieces of legislation passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2022—H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243—which mandate that individuals registering to vote must provide adequate evidence of citizenship such as a birth certificate. These laws further compel county officials to verify citizenship and remove noncitizens from voter registries. However, these requirements were halted on May 2 by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton who referenced both the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) or Motor Voter Law and prior judiciary decisions, pausing the enforcement due to concerns about its compliance with federal law.
Get the latest, most crucial news stories on the web – sent straight to your inbox for FREE as soon as they hit! Sign up for WayneDupree.com Email News Alerts in just 30 seconds!
A split decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bolton’s ruling, stating that while Congress has aimed to simplify voter registration through federal statutes like the NVRA, it does not allow for state legislatures to override these federal guidelines with more stringent voter qualification criteria.
Despite this setback, the RNC argues that federal intervention undermines Arizona's legislative authority over its elections and insists that adherence to such federal mandates would lead to confusion among voters—a violation of what is known as the Purcell Principle. This principle suggests changes in election rules close to an election risk causing disruption and should be avoided.
However, this interpretation has been contested by those opposing the RNC’s stance, suggesting instead that not enforcing these state laws could result in greater confusion and unfairness if certain groups are disenfranchised because of these last-minute legal battles.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and the U.S. Department of Justice have both opposed the RNC's application with Fontes emphasizing the potential chaos that could ensue from altering election procedures so close to voting commencement. The Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that since federal law preempts state law where there is conflict, especially concerning voter eligibility for presidential elections or mail-in voting requirements, it is unlikely that RNC’s appeal will hold merit before the Supreme Court.
With early voting poised to begin shortly in Arizona, all eyes are now on how swiftly—and how decisively—the Supreme Court will address this contentious issue amidst growing concerns about voter access and electoral integrity.
