New Supreme Court case could disenfranchise thousands of voters in swing states

Republicans want Supreme Court to intervene An extremely complex voting rights caseThis could disenfranchise thousands of presidential voters in Arizona. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota.

The case involves Arizona’s incredibly complex system for registering certain voters — a system that stems from two decades of conflicts between state and federal law and seemingly endless litigation. Among other things, Republicans claim that thousands of Arizona voters should be allowed only to vote in congressional elections and that they are barred from voting in state and local elections or from voting for president.

In 2004, Arizona enacted a law requiring new voters to Provide proof of citizenship However, this state law conflicts with a federal law, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to register voters who submit a standardized federal registration form.

The form requires Arizona voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens, but does not require them to submit other proof of citizenship.

The Supreme Court Arizona v. Arizona Intertribal Council (2013) and resolved the issue largely in favor of the NVRA. Tribal The ruling held that states must allow voters to register using federal forms, but it also stated that Congress’s power to require states to register voters was limited to “federal elections.”

Therefore, in response to TribalArizona is denying full registration to voters who submit federal forms but do not provide proof of citizenship. Tribalthese voters are allowed to vote in federal elections (Congressional and Presidential) but not in state and local elections in Arizona. According to an expert who testified at the hearing Republican National Committee In the case, “about a third of non-Hispanic white voters in Arizona are federal voters, while slightly more Two-thirds of minority voters are federal electors”

That racial disparity may explain why Republicans are now asking the Supreme Court to further restrict this small segment of Arizona’s electorate. 2020 Exit Polls Republican Donald Trump won with white voters in Arizona, but lost across the state as President Joe Biden performed strongly among Latino voters. Arizona’s 2020 winning percentage At about three percent, even small changes in the state’s eligible voter population could have an impact.

this Republican National Committee The case, now before the Supreme Court, involves a 2022 Arizona law that would impose three new restrictions on these Arizona voters who vote federal-only. It bars them from voting by mail, and it also bars them from voting for president — limiting them to voting in congressional elections. In addition, the 2022 law requires the state to reject any new voter registration submitted using the state’s own form if that registration does not include proof of citizenship — even though the state is still required to register the individual as a federal-only voter if the registrant submits a federal form.

However, the 2022 law never took effect. Partly because several key state offices are controlled by Democrats, but also because the courts were skeptical of the law. A total of seven justices heard Republican National Committee At some point in the case’s progress through the federal judicial system, and They didn’t vote Favors provisions that would prohibit federal voters from voting or electing the president by mail.

Meanwhile, those lower court judges were split over the limit on new registrants, even though it was likely the least impactful of the three restrictions in the 2022 law. The final group of judges voted 2-1 to strike down the provision, at least for now.

So now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to make this an unnecessarily complicated situation that could prevent tens of thousands of Americans from voting for the president in a key swing state.

Let’s start with a disclaimer: We’re talking about the same Supreme Court that recently ruled that former President Donald Trump Broad immunity from prosecution Because of the crimes he committed while in office. The Supreme Court has a Republican majority Not always following the lawEspecially when the law is contrary to the results that the Republicans want. Therefore, there is always a certain risk that the Republican majority of the court will cooperate with these judges in the case that the Republicans ask these judges to help the Republicans win the presidential election more easily.

Still, they do have to work if they want Republicans to prevail in this case.

The trial court hearing the case Republican National Committee The case concluded that two of the most serious restrictions in the 2022 law — a ban on mail-in voting and electing the president — violated the National Voting Rights Act, Same legal issue TribalTo justify trying to exclude these voters from presidential elections, Republicans point to a provision in the Constitution that gives Congress broad power to Determine the “time, place and manner” of electing members of CongressBut that doesn’t mean Congress has the same power in presidential elections.

However, the courts have long held that “the power of Congress to protect against corruption in the election of President and Vice President” is “clear” and that “the choice of means to that end raises a question of Mainly for Congressional judgment” So it’s common knowledge that Congress can regulate presidential elections. That also explains why every judge who considered the Republican argument (several of whom were appointed by Trump) voted to reject it.

There is another reason why the Supreme Court should not reinstate these two regulations. Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), the Court warned that “federal courts should generally not change state election rules in the period immediately before an election.” Although the Court never explicitly stated when “election eve” began, its Republican majority held that Purcell It was pretty radical in the past. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even suggested Purcell Window Open There are still more than nine months until the election..

It’s mid-to-late August. The 2024 election is just over two months away. Yet Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to change Arizona’s election rules to impose new voting restrictions that were not previously in effect and were blocked by a federal trial court in 2023. Purcell It should prevent the court from giving Republicans what they want in this case — at least until the election is over.

The Republican National Committee has a stronger case for limiting new voter registrations. In 2018, Arizona reached a lawsuit settlement. As part of the settlement, the party agreed to register federal voters who submitted the state’s own registration form instead of the federal registration form. The Republican Party now argues that the state legislature’s decision to enact a new law in 2022 Overturned 2018 lawsuit settlement.

It’s a reasonable argument, but the Republican National Committee’s call to reinstate this voter registration restriction during the 2024 elections may also violate Purcell. again, Purcell Arguing that courts should not change a state’s election rules on the eve of an election, Republicans asked the Supreme Court to change Arizona’s election rules in the final stages before voters begin casting ballots for the president.

anyway, Republican National Committee The case could offer a window into whether the Supreme Court’s Republican majority will act as an honest broker in the 2024 election. In past election cycles, Republican justices Waving Purcell Very positive Block lower court decisions that expand voting rights — often when Democrats support the lower courts’ approach.

The court read Purcell Now Republicans will be just as motivated to benefit from a more lax enforcement of this decision.