WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican push that could have blocked more than 41,000 Arizona voters from casting ballots for president in the closely contested swing state, but allowed some parts of a law requiring proof of citizenship to be enforced.
The 5-4 order came after emergency appeal filed by state and national Republicans. It sought to give full effect to voting measures that were enacted after President Joe Biden won the state over Republican Donald Trump with less than 11,000 votes. The measures have drawn fierce opposition from voting rights advocates.
Recommended Videos
The case could be one of multiple election disputes to come before the high court with the November election less than 90 days away.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to be fully enforced. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have joined with the court’s three liberals in fully rejecting the push, the order states.
The justices did not detail their reasoning in a brief order, as is typical in emergency appeals.
Trump applauded the high court’s decision, saying the high court has “great courage in doing what they’re doing.”
The high court's order allows the enforcement of restrictions that bar people from voting in state and local elections if they don’t provide proof of citizenship when they register while the legal fight continues in lower courts.
State voter registration forms submitted without “documentary proof of citizenship” will now be rejected by Arizona counties, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said. People can still register to vote in presidential and congressional elections with a different federal form that requires people to swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but does not require proof.
“My concern is that changes to the process should not occur this close to an election, it creates confusion for voters,” Fontes said in a statement. “We respect the Court’s decision and will implement these changes while continuing to protect voter access and make a voting simple process.”
Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a blog post that proof of citizenship laws “matter a lot. They stand to literally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters for no good reason.”
Proponents say the measure is about eliminating opportunities for fraud. National and state Republicans had asked the Supreme Court to get involved in a legal fight over voter registration restrictions that Republicans enacted in Arizona in 2022 following Biden’s narrow victory in the state in 2020.
The court’s action came after a lower court had blocked a requirement that called for state voter registration forms to be rejected if they are not accompanied by documents proving U.S. citizenship. A second measure would have prohibited voting in presidential elections or by mail if registrants don’t prove they are U.S. citizens.
An appellate panel of three Trump appointees initially blocked the lower court ruling in part and allowed enforcement of a provision dealing with state voter registration forms. But another appellate panel voted 2-1 to keep both provisions on hold, with two Bill Clinton appointees allowing the voter registrations to go forward over the dissent of a Trump appointee.
The measures were passed on party-line votes and signed into law by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, amid a wave of proposals that Republicans introduced around the country after Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump, including in Arizona.
For state and local elections, voters must provide proof of citizenship when they register or have it on file with the state. Since that isn’t a requirement for federal elections for Congress or president, tens of thousands of voters who haven’t provided proof of citizenship are registered only for federal elections.
There were 41,352 of those voters registered as of August 9 in Arizona, Fontes, a Democrat, said.
The GOP push to block those voters would most impact military service members, students and Native Americans, Fontes said. About 27% of those voters are registered Democrats and 15% are Republicans. More than half, 54%, are registered independents, according to state data.
Voting rights groups and the Biden administration had sued over the Arizona laws.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach led Republican attorneys general in 24 states in supporting the restrictions.
Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, who along with Senate President Warren Petersen had asked the court to take up the issue, said in a statement that Thursday's order was “a step in the right direction to require proof of citizenship in all our elections.” Toma and Petersen are both Republicans.
Federal-only voters have been a subject of political wrangling since the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that Arizona cannot require documentary proof of citizenship for people to vote in national elections. The state responded by creating two classes of voters: those who can vote in all races and those who can vote only in federal elections.
There is no evidence that the existence of federal-only voters has allowed noncitizens to illegally vote, but Republican skeptics have nonetheless worked aggressively to crack down on federal-only voting.
One of the new laws sought to further divide voters, allowing votes in congressional elections without proof of citizenship, but denying the vote in presidential contests.
The Legislature’s own lawyers had said much of the measure was unconstitutional, directly contradicted the earlier Supreme Court decision and was likely to be thrown out in court.
Meanwhile, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on a handful of other election-related cases Thursday, clearing the way for ballot measures that were facing legal challenges to now appear before voters. Arizona voters will have a chance to decide on whether they want to establish open primary elections in which all candidates compete regardless of their party affiliation — changing the state’s primaries from closed to open.
The justices bucked two of opponents’ multiple arguments. The measure faces one pending challenge, but if it is not ruled on by early Friday morning, the measure will officially be kept on the ballot.
Voters in other states, including Idaho, South Dakota and Nevada, will also decide on similar ballot measures concerning open primary elections this November.
The high court also ruled the title of a measure to decrease workers’ wages up to 25% per hour if they are tipped was not misleading, placing it on the November ballot.
___
Billeaud reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington as well as Sejal Govindarao and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this story.