The Republican Party wants the Supreme Court to judge the matter A nauseatingly complex suffrage caseThat could potentially disenfranchise thousands of presidential voters in the swing state of Arizona. It is reported as a case Republican National Committee v. Me Familia Vota.
The case involves a surprisingly complex system that Arizona uses to register certain voters — one that stems from 20 years of conflicting state and federal laws, and seemingly endless lawsuits over those laws. Among other things, Republicans claim that hundreds of thousands of Arizona voters should only be allowed to vote in congressional elections and barred from voting in state and local elections or voting for president.
In 2004, Arizona enacted a law requiring new voters Provide documentary proof of citizenship (such as a passport or birth certificate) when registering to vote in the state. This state law, however, conflicts with a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to register voters who submit a standardized federal registration form.
This form requires Arizona voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are indeed citizens. However, they do not need to submit any other proof of citizenship.
The Supreme Court faced this conflict in 2013 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), and solved it essentially for NVRA. Inter-tribal Held that states must be allowed to register voters using federal forms, but also suggested that Congress’s power to require states to register voters was limited to “federal elections.”
Thus, in response to Inter-tribalArizona completely refuses to register voters who submit federal forms without proof of citizenship. Since Inter-tribalThese voters are allowed to vote in federal elections (for Congress and President), but not in state and local races in Arizona. According to one expert who testified RNC case, “about one-third of one [percent] of non-Hispanic white voters [in Arizona] Only federal voters, while slightly more than that Two-thirds of one percent of minority voters are federal-only voters“
This racial disparity probably explains why the Republican Party is now asking the Supreme Court to limit this small percentage of Arizona voters. 2020 exit polls Republican Donald Trump won white voters in Arizona, but lost the state overall due to President Joe Biden’s strong performance with Latinos. Biden’s Margin of victory in Arizona in 2020 was about three-tenths of a percent, and even a small change in the state’s population of eligible voters could tip the balance.
D RNC The case, which is now before the Supreme Court, concerns a 2022 Arizona law that would impose three new restrictions on these federal-only Arizona voters. It prevents them from voting by mail and voting for president altogether—thus limiting them to voting only in congressional elections. Additionally, the 2022 law would require states to reject any new voter registration submitted using the state’s own form if that registration did not include proof of citizenship — although the state would still be required to register the person as a federal-only voter if the registrant submitted the federal form.
The 2022 Act, however, did not take effect. This is true in part because several key statewide offices are controlled by Democrats, but also because the courts have taken a skeptical view of the law. A total of seven judges held the hearing RNC case at some point in its journey through the federal judiciary, and None of them voted Favors provisions preventing federal-only voters from calling or voting for president.
Meanwhile, the lower court justices are split on the restrictions governing new registrants, though it is likely the least consequential of the 2022 law’s three restrictions. The last panel of judges voted 2-1 to consider the provision, blocking it at least for now.
And so now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide to further complicate this unnecessarily complicated morass, potentially preventing tens of thousands of Americans from voting for president in a key swing state.
So, how strong is the argument of the Republican Party?
Let’s make a disclaimer: We’re talking about the same Supreme Court that recently held, despite no language in the Constitution supporting this position, that former President Donald Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for crimes while he was in office. Doesn’t follow through, especially when the legislation cuts against the Republican Party’s preferred outcome. So, in a case where the GOP is asking these justices to make it easier for Republicans to win presidential elections, there’s always some risk that the Court’s Republican majority will play ball.
That said, they really need to expand if they want to give the GOP a victory in this area.
In the judicial court in which the hearing is held RNC The lawsuit concluded that two of the most severe restrictions in the 2022 law — prohibitions against voting by mail and voting for president — violated the NVRA, Same law at issue Inter-tribal. To justify efforts to lock these voters out of the presidential election, the GOP points to a provision of the Constitution that gives Congress sweeping powers. Shape the “time, place, and manner” for electing members of CongressBut it does not give Congress the same power over presidential elections.
The Court has long held that the “power of Congress to protect the election of the President and Vice President from corruption” is “clear” and “the choice of means to that end presents a question.” Primarily addressing the judgment of Congress” So it’s well established that Congress can control presidential elections. That explains why every judge who considered the GOP’s argument, including several appointed by Trump, voted to reject it.
There is another reason why the Supreme Court did not reinstate these two provisions. in Purcell v. Gonzales (2006), the Court cautioned that “federal courts generally should not change state election rules so close to an election.” Although the Court never specified when the “near-election period” began, its Republican majority read Parcel quite aggressively in the past. Justice Brett Kavanagh also suggested that Parcel The window opens more than nine months before the general election.
It is now mid to late August. The 2024 elections are just two months away. And yet the GOP is asking the Supreme Court to change Arizona’s election rules to impose new voting restrictions that haven’t gone into effect before and were ordered by a federal trial court in 2023. Parcel Courts should block the GOP from giving it what it wants in this case — at least until after the election.
The RNC’s arguments for restrictions on new voter registration are a little stronger. In 2018, Arizona settled a lawsuit. As part of that settlement, it agreed to register federal-only voters who submit the state’s own registration form instead of the federal form. The GOP now argues that the state legislature’s decision to enact a new law in 2022 2018 overrides the settlement of the case.
It’s a sound argument, but the RNC’s request to reinstate these voter registration restrictions during the 2024 election is also likely. Parcel. again, Parcel The court should not change a state’s election rules so close to an election, and Republicans have asked the Supreme Court to finalize Arizona’s election rules before voters begin casting ballots for president.
In any event, the RNC The case will likely provide a window into whether the Republican majority on this court will act as honest brokers during the 2024 race. In past election cycles, there have been Republican justices Parcel Very aggressively expands voting rights to block lower court decisions — often in cases where Democrats supported lower court procedures.
It is only fair that the court read Parcel Just as aggressively now that Republicans would benefit from a relaxed application of that decision.
