The Arizona measure, enacted in 2022 but never enforced, would impose new requirements on people registering to vote and could affect thousands of voters.
A voter walks to a precinct in El Mirage prior to casting his ballot in Arizona’s primary election in July. The Supreme Court granted a Republican request to make the state enforce part of a law requiring people show proof of citizenship to vote.Ross D. Franklin / AP
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday partly granted a request from the Republican National Committee to make Arizona enforce measures requiring people to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
In what is likely to be one of many election-related disputes to come before the court ahead of the November election, the justices allowed for one of three provisions of the state law to be enforced.
The vote was 5-4 on allowing limited enforcement of the law with conservative justices in the majority. One conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The court, in a brief order, did not explain its reasoning.
Three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — said they would have allowed all three provisions to be enforced.
More than 40,000 people have registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona without providing proof of citizenship, although state officials say most are inactive voters, and only a small number will likely be affected. In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden beat former President Donald Trump in Arizona by just over 10,000 votes.
The provision the court allowed the state to enforce would require officials to turn away attempts to register to vote using the state’s own registration form if the person has no documentary proof of citizenship.
But the court kept on hold separate provisions that would prevent people without proof of citizenship from voting in presidential elections or by mail if they registered to vote using a different, federal registration form.
The case touches upon a widespread, unverified Republican talking point that noncitizens routinely vote in U.S. elections.
Lawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.
From my reading of the actual sections of the law which were not reinstated, the law has no penalty for failure to meet the qualification.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-121.01(E) and 16-127(A) are the sections which are not reinstated. Below are the texts for the relevant sections which are not reinstated.
§§ 16-121.01(E):
16-121.01. Requirements for proper registration; violation; classification
E. After complying with subsection D of this section, if the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections matches the applicant with information that verifies the applicant is a United States citizen, is otherwise qualified as prescribed by section 16-101 and has met the other requirements of this section, the applicant shall be properly registered. If the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections matches the applicant with information that the applicant is not a United States citizen, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall reject the application, notify the applicant that the application was rejected because the applicant is not a United States citizen and forward the application to the county attorney and attorney general for investigation. If the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections is unable to match the applicant with appropriate citizenship information, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall notify the applicant that the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections could not verify that the applicant is a United States citizen and that the applicant will not be qualified to vote in a presidential election or by mail with an early ballot in any election until satisfactory evidence of citizenship is provided.
16-127(A):
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-121.01
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-127
Here is another link a Gateway Pundit
It says the Republican Party is celebrating this as a win.
I have been diggng deep for other reports of their ruling. many said it was not a victory but a defeat.
Here’s one such article
This is an important ruling. Now it will fall to the local govt to enforce it properly, and when they fail to do so, it will fall to the local courts to hold them to the task. The problem remains, however, that the local courts have demonstrated their complete incompetence/corruption in enforcing election law – otherwise Kari Lake would be governor today. Still, this is an important ruling which, to be honest, I didn’t think would actually be heard by SCOTUS.