In a significant ruling on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a nuanced verdict that slightly tightened voter registration rules in Arizona while preserving the voting rights of thousands of already-registered voters.
Vox reported that the Supreme Court's ruling complicates the process for new voters to register in Arizona but declines to disenfranchise those already registered.
The case centered on Arizona's voter registration system, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to register with the state form.
However, federal law permits registration through a standardized federal form that does not require such documentation.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona that Arizona must comply with federal law, allowing voters to register using the federal form. This ruling has been particularly beneficial for minority voters, who are disproportionately federal-only voters.
The current controversy arose from a challenge led by the Republican National Committee (RNC) in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, seeking to impose three new restrictions on federal-only voters under a 2022 Arizona law.
A federal court had blocked these provisions in 2023, but the RNC appealed to the Supreme Court. The GOP's most significant requests included banning federal-only voters from voting by mail and from participating in presidential elections, which the Court ultimately rejected.
The decision to reject these broader restrictions came as a relief to voting rights advocates, who feared a larger-scale disenfranchisement effort.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the lone dissenter among the Republican majority in the Court, highlighting the contentious nature of the ruling.
Despite this, the Court did allow one provision to take effect: the invalidation of state form submissions that lacked documentary proof for federal-only voter registration. This change, though impactful, is not expected to drastically alter voter turnout unless the upcoming 2024 election is extremely close.
The Supreme Court's ruling has mixed implications for Arizona voters. On the one hand, the decision to make it harder for new voters to register could limit participation, particularly among minority groups.
An expert witness in the RNC case noted that while approximately one-third of a percent of non-Hispanic White voters in Arizona are federal-only voters, over two-thirds of a percent of minority voters fall into this category.
This demographic difference underscores the disproportionate impact the decision could have on minority communities.
On the other hand, the decision to reject the more extensive restrictions proposed by the GOP is seen as a safeguard for the integrity of the upcoming presidential election.
President Joe Biden's narrow victory in Arizona in 2020, largely attributed to Latino voters, highlighted the critical role that federal-only voters can play in swing states.
The Court's refusal to impose the additional restrictions ensures that these voters will not be excluded from participating in the 2024 election.
Central to the Court's decision was the interpretation of the "Purcell principle," a legal doctrine established in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) that cautions against changing election rules close to an election.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's interpretation of this principle was key in the decision to reject the GOP's broader requests.
He argued that the inconsistency of implementing such changes so close to a presidential election would have created significant confusion and potential disenfranchisement.
This aspect of the ruling reflects the Court's awareness of the delicate balance between maintaining electoral integrity and ensuring voter access.
By allowing the third provision of the 2022 law to take effect while rejecting the others, the Court sought to uphold this balance, albeit in a manner that slightly favors the Republican Party.
