A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court order, allowing Arizona to enforce its Voter Registration Form law, which requires applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, comprising three judges, granted Arizona’s request to allow the state to implement the law, permitting county recorders to reject applications with incomplete proof of citizenship. The ruling does not impact the ability of individuals registered using the federal form to vote, but applicants who use state forms with incomplete documentation will need to resubmit adequate proof of citizenship or face rejection of their applications.
The law being enforced states that any application for state registration must be accompanied by satisfactory proof of citizenship and allows county recorders to reject submissions lacking the required documentation.
Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory for electoral integrity, arguing that only U.S. citizens should have the right to vote. Warrent Petersen, Arizona State Senator, celebrated the decision, stating that any attempt to undermine the integrity of voter registration rolls is unacceptable.
While Arizona had previously approved Proposition 200 in 2004, requiring proof of citizenship and photo identification, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2013 that states must use the standardized federal form, exempting federal elections, that only requests applicants to affirm that they are citizens.
The matter has been further complicated by a consent decree in 2018, which forced voters who applied using state forms without proof of citizenship to be registered with federal-only voting status. In contrast, the new ruling seeks to block this practice moving forward.
Voting rights proponents, however, have expressed concerns around the decision’s implications, citing figures that up to 35,000 Arizonans are currently registered only to vote in federal elections. Advocacy group Mi Familia Vota, one of the plaintiffs alongside Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, had claimed the law violated federal law in a lawsuit filed two years prior, which was combined with additional cases.
