dpThe Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.
The dispute will not be resolved before the midterms, but it elevates efforts by Republicans to tighten voting rules amid President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass election fraud.
The justices will be examining the scope of the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law that governs how states maintain their voter rolls. While much of the case concerns Arizona’s specific procedures for vetting voters’ citizenship status, the dispute also tees up a question with nationwide implications about when election officials can purge rolls.
The NVRA forbids “systematic” voter removals program within 90 days of an election. Lower courts in the past have applied that prohibition toward programs aimed at removing non-citizens from the rolls in mass.
Now Republicans and the Trump administration is arguing that the NVRA’s so-called quiet period does not cover purges aimed at culling non-citizens from the rolls.
The grant of the case comes after the Supreme Court gave a major win to Republicans with a ruling this term that hobbled the use of the Voting Rights Act to challenge redistricting plans. On Monday, the justices punted on another case Republicans were asking it to review, by requesting more briefing on a petition seeking to revive Pennsylvania’s requirement that voters put the data on mail ballot envelopes. That case, if ultimately taken up, would give the higher court the opportunity to further rein in when lower courts can strike down restrictive voting laws.
The Supreme Court will give a fuller look at the 2022 Arizona law next term, having considered it once before on its emergency docket. The justices will look specifically at a provision of the law that bars them from registering using Arizona’s state-based registration form.
Previously, the Supreme Court let that requirement go into effect before the 2024 election, but the high court let stand an appeals court ruling halting the proof of citizenship requirement for mail voting.
Older court precedents have established that Arizona voters without proof of citizenship can register to vote using the federal voter registration form, but those federal-only voters cannot cast ballots in state or local contests.
The scrutiny of Arizona’s voter purge program could drastically change how voter lists are maintained around the country, as the Trump administration and some Republicans have argued that states are not doing enough to keep their voter rolls clean.
Currently, in the 90 days before an election, states can only remove voters from rolls on a one-by-one basis, if the voter asks to be removed to be removed or if there is “individualized” investigations about the eligibility.
Arizona and other states, however, have pushed for the ability to do data-matching programs within that 90 days, using federal citizenship data programs or state citizen databases. Those programs however, can at times wrongly flag citizens as ineligible voters, leading to concerns that allowing the mass purges so close to the election does not give voters or states time to correct mistaken removals.
Supporters of Arizona and similar laws say the restrictions are commonsense regulations that keep voter rolls clean and prevent non-citizen voting. Critics say the laws risk disenfranchising eligible voters – one survey has shown that 9% of Americans do not have easy access to the citizenship documents, like passports, that qualify under the laws. They argue that because instances of non-citizen voting are so rare, the scant problem does not justify the hurdles the requirements could pose to ballot access.
Trump has made proof-of-citizenship requirements a central focus of his administration. But both his efforts in Congress and through an executive order to expand the requirement nationwide have been unsuccessful.
Several states have recently passed their own proof of citizenship laws and are still in the early stages of trying to implement the requirement. Arizona, however, stands out for its much longer track record of having various versions of the requirement on the books.
In the dispute before the Supreme Court, the challengers argue that a longstanding consent decree — stemming from a challenge from an older law adding the requirement — forecloses the state from demanding proof of citizenship for federal–only voters who register with the state registration form.
