Arizona’s leaders are promising to retain state’s authority to protect voting rights for citizens of the United States after yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that requires the state to seek new state-specific instructions, for voter registration.
The Court ruled that Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship from individuals who use a federal voter registration form.
The justices found that the if the state has independent proof that someone is not a citizen, then the fact that the person registered with the national form does not require to allow them to vote.
“Only citizens of the United States have the constitutional right to vote and therefore, no others should be allowed to register. This is the undeniable fact that served as the driving force behind Arizona’s Prop 200 which received overwhelming support from Arizona voters. The decision handed down today does not change that central and elemental requirement. However, it does temporarily force Arizona to accept federal voter registration forms with no requirement to prove citizenship,” said Speaker of the House Andy Tobin in a statement released shortly after the ruling.
“In 2004, Arizona voters enacted Proposition 200, a ballot measure that required voters to show ID at the polls and proof of citizenship when they register to vote,” said Secretary of State Ken Bennett. “After nearly 10 years of legal proceedings, we were disappointed to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state’s ability to require additional documentation of citizenship from a voter who doesn’t provide it on the federal voter registration form.
“While disheartened with the court’s decision, we were encouraged by its recognition that Arizona is not prohibited from denying registration based on information in the state’s possession which indicates the applicant is not eligible — precisely the procedure currently employed by the state’s county recorders,” continued Bennett.
“In addition, we plan to renew our request of the Election Assistance Commission to include information necessary to determine eligibility on the federal form as suggested by Justice Scalia,” said Bennett. “If the Commission once again refuses, we plan to pursue further litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act to include this information to determine eligibility.”
“Although Prop 200 opponents may be crowing over this latest victory in the battle against the will of the people of Arizona, they will ultimately lose the war. All nine justices agreed that every state, including Arizona, still retains the authority to determine who is qualified to vote in elections,” said Speaker Tobin. “Although I am disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to have Arizona jump through additional hoops, I remain confident and determined that we will find ways to ensure the undisputed integrity and legitimacy of our state’s electoral process. I support Secretary of State Bennett as he implements the process requesting new state-specific instructions.”
“Election integrity starts with voter registration. We strongly believe citizenship is the foundation from which eligibility is derived and we will continue to look for ways to ensure only eligible citizens are casting ballots in our elections,” concluded Bennett.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has given us a clear path to victory for the people of Arizona, who overwhelmingly approved the state constitutional amendment that was the subject of the legal challenge,” Horne said. “Since the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that this pathway exists, Arizona should use it. The sanctity of the ballot box is a cherished right for all Americans and it must be protected.”
In the case of Arizona v Intertribal Council, Arizona sought a reversal of a Ninth Circuit ruling that Arizona was prohibited from asking people registering to vote for evidence of citizenship. Although the Supreme Court declined to reverse the Ninth Circuit at this time, at page 15 of the Opinion, the Supreme Court laid out a path for eventual victory by the state.
At page 15, the Courts stated:
“Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualification”.
In this case, Arizona has a constitutional right to obtain the information (evidence of citizenship) necessary to enforce its voter qualifications (that only citizens can vote) says the Attorney General.
If the state does not obtain relief from the Federal Elections Assistance Commission, it will go back to Court, according to the Attorney General’s Office.
Arizona did seek this relief in 2005, which was denied, and, under a previous Attorney General, Arizona did not appeal. The Court made clear that Arizona could return to the EAC and then, if it failed to get relief, return to Court.