The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted Arizona to partially enforce a controversial law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.
According to Bloomberg, the decision, rendered ahead of the November election, allows the state to apply the law to state registration applications but not federal forms.
This move follows an appeal from the Republican National Committee (RNC), which sought intervention after a federal judge blocked the law. The court's decision not to explain underscores its pattern of silence on emergency applications, fueling the ongoing debates surrounding the Purcell principle, a judicial doctrine emphasizing caution in altering election rules close to voting.
The Supreme Court's decision has sparked considerable debate, particularly given its timing and potential impact on the upcoming 2024 election cycle. Arizona's Attorney General had expressed concerns over the law’s immediate implementation, fearing confusion among voters. However, the RNC argued that enforcing the law was crucial to maintaining the integrity of the state's voter registration process.
The law in question requires proof of U.S. citizenship when individuals register to vote using state forms, though it does not extend this requirement to federal forms. The RNC’s appeal to the Supreme Court followed a contentious legal battle in lower courts, highlighting the polarized views on voter ID laws and their implications for election security.
In a divided decision, the justices were split along ideological lines, with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett, opposing the RNC’s request. Conversely, conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch supported broader enforcement of the law, which would have restricted voting in presidential elections and voting by mail without proof of citizenship on federal forms.
The RNC’s appeal had a convoluted journey through the federal court system, reflecting the deep divisions among judges on this issue. Initially, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court, comprising judges appointed by President Donald Trump, allowed for partial enforcement of the law. This decision was soon overturned by a different Ninth Circuit panel, composed of Clinton-appointed judges, who reinstated the federal judge’s block on the law.
The latter panel harshly criticized the earlier ruling, describing it as a “manifest injustice” and emphasizing the potential for voter confusion so close to an election. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was part of the original panel, dissented from the reversal, calling the decision “highly irregular” and warning of the risks involved in politically charged cases like this one.
The conflicting rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court illustrate the challenges of applying the Purcell principle, which urges caution in altering election laws close to an election. The Purcell case decided in 2006, has become a touchstone for courts grappling with similar issues, though its application remains a subject of intense debate.
One of the central issues in this case is the distinction between state and federal voter registration forms. While Arizona’s law requires proof of citizenship for those registering with state forms, it does not impose the same requirement on individuals using federal forms, a point of contention for those advocating for stricter voter ID laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice has argued against enforcing the law on federal forms, urging the courts to maintain the injunction. Their stance reflects broader concerns about the potential for such laws to disenfranchise voters, particularly in communities where access to citizenship documentation may be limited.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow partial enforcement of the law has left many questions unanswered, particularly regarding the future of voter ID laws and the balance between preventing fraud and ensuring access to the ballot.
As the November election approaches, the implications of this ruling will likely continue to resonate, both in Arizona and beyond. With voter registration deadlines looming, the partial enforcement of Arizona’s law could impact the eligibility of thousands of potential voters, setting the stage for further legal challenges.
