Supreme Court will hear Arizona case that could badly weaken key federal law protecting voter registration

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear Republican arguments in defense of Arizona laws that risk disenfranchising eligible voters and make it harder to register. 

If the court rules for the GOP, it could significantly weaken the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a crucial federal law that for three decades has made it easier for voters to get on the rolls and stay there.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is asking the court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, which found that two Arizona election laws ran afoul of the NVRA. One law requires voters to prove their citizenship status with documentation when they register to vote — a requirement that the SAVE America Act, President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority, would impose nationally. The other Arizona law forces county officials to cancel voter registrations if they get information showing the registrant was ineligible.

The Supreme Court’s certiorari grant was quickly applauded by Trump’s allies in the Department of Justice. “Very important case!” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon posted on X. “We… briefed the importance of this case. Clean voter rolls are essential to election integrity and voter confidence!”

Arizona enacted the pair of laws in 2022, aiming to solve the nearly nonexistent problem of noncitizen voting. They were immediately challenged by a bevy of litigation from pro-voting groups. Nine separate cases were ultimately consolidated into Mi Familia Vota’s lawsuit seeking to block the statutes. 

In a series of decisions between 2022 and 2024, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, blocking the laws’ key provisions. The RNC then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which called the statutes “unlawful measures of voter suppression.” 

The NVRA requires states to “accept and use” the federal registration form, which by law can only require “such identifying information… as is necessary… to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” The federal law also imposes a 90 day “quiet period” before elections when state administrators cannot systematically remove voters from the registration rolls.

This fall, the court will hear oral arguments on two questions. First, does the NVRA (or a federal consent decree) prevent Arizona from requiring applicants to show documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) when they use the state’s voter registration form? And, second, does the NVRA’s quiet period prohibit the systematic cancelling of noncitizen registrations?

Since the mid 1990s, the NVRA has significantly expanded access to the voter rolls, as well as making it harder for states to purge voters close to an election when they have no recourse to challenge mistakes. (The law also requires that states offer voter registration opportunities at government agencies, including departments of motor vehicles — those provisions are not at issue in this case.) If the justices rule for the RNC, they could make the landmark voting law far less effective — not long after they gutted another crucial federal protection, the Voting Rights Act, earlier this year.  

The Supreme Court already concluded that the NVRA prevents states from requiring DPOC with federal registrations in a 2013 opinion. While Arizona’s law allows applicants without DPOC to register as federal-only voters, it also prevents them from voting in the presidential election or voting by mail. 

The Supreme Court granted a partial stay of the district court’s decision in 2024, permitting Arizona to reject state voter registration applications submitted without DPOC but allowing voters who used the federal registration form to still vote in the presidential election and by mail.

While the Department of Justice (DOJ) originally opposed the laws, the agency flipped sides after President Donald Trump took office, and filed an amicus brief in May supporting the RNC.

In a series of separate lawsuits seeking unfettered access to state registration records, the DOJ has urged judges to expedite their appeals, so that it may embark on combing the rolls for potential noncitizens ahead of the election. In those filings, the DOJ contends that the NVRA’s ban on states’ programmatic removal of voters during the quiet period does not block the federal government from conducting its own systematic check of state voter rolls. The feds would then send states a list of potential noncitizens for “individualized” removal. 

After hearing the case this fall, SCOTUS is expected to issue a ruling next spring.