The legal battles over the 2024 U.S. election are already intense, with recent actions by the Arizona election board drawing significant attention. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it would revisit a previously settled issue, allowing a new Arizona law to take effect that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. By reopening this matter so late in the process, the Court is creating a misleading narrative that noncitizens are a threat to U.S. elections. This decision signals that the justices, who appear aligned with former President Donald Trump, may intervene in the election unless the results are indisputable.
The case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, involves the Republican National Committee (RNC) seeking last-minute changes to Arizona’s voter registration laws, despite the fact that the state’s vote-by-mail registration period is already underway. The RNC’s legal actions threaten voting rights by potentially disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible Arizona voters and perpetuating the false claim that noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections. As the libertarian Cato Institute pointed out, “there is no good evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to actually shift the outcome of elections.” The stakes are high: Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by just 10,457 votes, and it is unclear how this new ruling might affect the upcoming election.
The Court’s unsigned order allows Arizona’s new law, which requires proof of citizenship for voter registration, to take effect. This suggests that the Court’s conservative justices, including three appointed by Trump, may ultimately strike down a part of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a significant federal voting rights law. This would mark a shift from its previous position supporting the Act.
While the Court permitted the new law requiring proof of citizenship for new voter registrations, it stopped short of allowing the RNC’s request to remove the 42,301 already registered voters who lack documentation. However, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch supported removing these voters as well.
The threat of further interference in Arizona’s voter rolls remains. For example, Stephen Miller, a former Trump advisor, and his America First group recently filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County to force the county recorder to submit the names of voters without documentation to the Department of Homeland Security and the state attorney general.
Although Miller’s lawsuit may not succeed, the Court’s intervention could still impact the election, even if it only affects future registrations. Voter registration has surged since President Joe Biden’s exit from the race, with nonpartisan group Vote.org reporting tens of thousands of new registrants, 83 percent of whom were under the age of 34, in just the first two days following Biden’s announcement. While data from Arizona is not yet available, the trend is consistent across other battleground states. With registration ongoing, the Court’s ruling changes the previously provided information to voters about registration requirements, complicating efforts to ensure all eligible voters can participate.
How did we reach this point? Three decades ago, during a period when voting rights had more bipartisan support, Congress passed the NVRA to standardize voter registration across the U.S. This Act created a national registration form requiring applicants to declare under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens, but it did not require them to provide supporting documents. In 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that Arizona could not enforce this requirement. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s conflicting requirements because “the power of Congress over the ‘Times, Places and Manner’ of congressional elections ‘is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient.’”
Currently, Arizona mandates proof of citizenship to vote in state elections, and most voters comply. However, there are several thousand “federal-only” voters who have not submittedadditional documentation, many of whom register on college campuses, suggesting they are likely college students without driver’s licenses rather than noncitizens.
In 2022, Arizona Republicans, encouraged by a political climate that often challenges constitutional norms, passed a law reimposing the citizenship documentation requirement for federal elections. This directly contradicted the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling, which clarified that the NVRA “precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.” Despite this precedent, the Court’s recent decision allows Arizona’s new law to go into effect, requiring proof of citizenship for all new registrations. The Court may revisit this case next year, potentially impacting the status of over 40,000 already registered voters.
The Court’s conservative justices have reversed themselves on this issue, displaying what some view as hypocrisy. In the 2020 election, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch cited the “Purcell principle,” which advises against federal court interference with state voting laws close to an election. However, the Court’s current actions could alter the outcome in November. Not all voters without an ID are Democrats, but many are, including college students who may lack the necessary documentation required by Arizona’s new law. Among registered voters aged 18 to 29 in battleground states, Harris leads Trump by 9 points.
Beyond voter suppression, the RNC’s push to bring this case so close to the election appears intended to cast doubt on the election results by reviving debunked theories about noncitizen voting. Twenty-four states filed an amicus brief supporting Arizona, alleging that “aliens are illegally voting in elections” in significant enough numbers to have influenced past election outcomes. These claims rely on a single, flawed, and widely debunked study.
Contrary to these conspiracy theories, there are many benign reasons why people might lack proof of citizenship, often related to income levels. Research shows that nearly 9 percent of voting-age citizens “do not have a non-expired driver’s license,” while “another 12 percent (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name.” The same study found that “people in lower income groups are more likely to think photo IDs are not required for voting in person or to be unsure.” Access to these documents may be hindered by them being stored in a bank safety deposit box or lost during periods of hardship. The NVRA’s oath requirement is effective because it allows individuals who lack easy access to documentation to vote while imposing criminal penalties if they lie.
Arizona’s restrictions are not only burdensome but unnecessary. States already have multiple safeguards to prevent noncitizens from voting, such as cross-referencing state DMV records, jury duty lists, and Social Security records.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling raises serious concerns about its potential impact on voter registration and turnout, especially as the 2024 election approaches.