Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Law Requiring Voter Registration Applicants to Prove Citizenship
In a 7-2 ruling and a major victory for voting rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that required people attempting to register to vote in the state to provide proof of citizenship. The court ruled the additional requirement, not required under federal law, was an overreach by the state. States cannot add extra voter requirements that go beyond federal law. The 1993 "motor voter" law was passed in order to simplify voter registration and only requires that potential voters state that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require additional proof of citizenship. The majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, who said that federal law "forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form." The dissenting votes were from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Voting rights groups applauded the ruling, USA Today reported:
'Today's decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,' said Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the lead counsel for the state law's challengers.
In 2004, Arizona voters approved the additional requirement through a referendum, Prop. 200. Since then, more than 30,000 of the state's residents have been denied voter registration because they didn't provide the required documentation. Courts have ruled differently on the legality of the proposition since then. According to the majority opinion, the Supreme Court overturned the proposition based on the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that while states can set the specific times, places and manner of holding federal elections, Congress can set rules related to those elections.
Four other states require citizenship proof in order to register to vote—Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee—and it is likely that this ruling affects them as well.
The court will take up another voting rights case this session, a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act .
