Arizona’s voter suppression laws will remain blocked

Provisions of two voter suppression bills will remain blocked after a federal court rejected Republicans’ request to stop a devastating late February ruling blocking parts of Arizona’s strict citizenship and residency verification laws.

After a federal court blocked House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243 in Arizona, Republicans asked the court to stay the decisions while they appealed. The court denied, writing that Republican interveners were unlikely to succeed on appeal.

Republicans and the state of Arizona have already appealed the court’s February decision that blocked the existing law to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is pending.

Original story, February 29

In a 109-page opinion released earlier today, a federal court struck down provisions of two Arizona laws designed to make voting more difficult.

The voter-favoring decision by a Clinton appointee is the result of a consolidated eight-case lawsuit filed by pro-voting groups challenging provisions of two Arizona laws designed to make voting more difficult: House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243.

Under HB 2492, new voters registering using federal forms must provide proof of citizenship or residence permit (DPOC) if they want to vote in the presidential election or vote early by mail for any office. Voters who registered when the DPOC requirement was not in place must provide proof of citizenship to vote in the presidential election. The law also authorizes the Arizona Attorney General’s office to investigate voters who lack citizenship status. Finally, the law requires registrants who use the state voter registration form to provide their place of birth, information that is not relevant to voter eligibility and is not required on the federal voter registration form.

HB 2243 allows voter purges and requires the cancellation of voter registrations if county registrars have “reason to believe” that voters, not citizens, fail to provide “satisfactory evidence” within 35 days of notification.

Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino filed the first appeal of HB 2492, arguing that the bill would impose significant burdens on Arizona voters who registered to vote even though there was no requirement to provide proof of citizenship, and could potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands voters.

Seven other lawsuits were filed in the hours, days and months after: Living United for Change Arizona v. Hobbs, United States vs. Arizona, Poder Latinx v. Hobbs, Democratic National Committee vs. Hobbs, AZ AANHPI for Equity Coalition v. Hobbs, Arizona Promise vs. Hobbs AND Tohono O’odham Nation v. Brnovich.

The lawsuits challenged HB 2492 and 2243 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Substantive Provision of the Civil Rights Act, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and the National Voter Registration Act. All cases were consolidated under Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes. Each lawsuit argued that the new laws would unfairly and unlawfully target communities of color, naturalized voters, linguistic minority communities and Native Americans.

Following a 10-day trial last year, the court struck down key provisions of the law.

The court ruled that requiring people registering to vote using a state form to provide the voter’s state or country of birth violates the substantive provision of the Civil Rights Act. The court also invalidated a provision of HB 2243 that allows county registrars to cancel a voter’s registration if they have “reason to believe” that the voter is not a U.S. citizen. In another victory for voters, the court ruled that the state’s requirement to provide proof of residency for federal elections violates federal law. If a voter uses a state form to register and does not include proof of residency, the voter can be registered as a federal-only voter.

Before the hearing, the judge had already blocked key provisions of the law.

In September 2022, HB 2243 was temporarily blocked for the duration of the 2022 midterm elections. This was a huge victory for voters because the bill was scheduled to go into effect in late September 2022, which would provide “actually enough time” to remove voters who failed to deliver DPOC within the 35-day window before the 2022 midterm elections. As a result of this victory and ongoing legal proceedings, none of the provisions have been implemented. In 2023, several provisions of these acts were blocked by a default judgment.

For example, a provision requiring proof of citizenship for voters using a federal form was blocked. In practice, this means that Arizona residents who register to vote using a federal or state form but do not provide proof of citizenship will be registered to vote in all elections if the county registrar certifies that they are citizens.

In addition, as a result of the summary judgment order, if a voter does not check the box certifying that they are a citizen (shown below) but does provide proof of citizenship, that voter will be registered to vote. If a voter fails to provide proof of citizenship, the application may still be rejected.

Additionally, the court sided with the Tohono O’odham plaintiff and ruled that voters do not need to have a residential address to meet proof of residency requirements. The court also expanded the list of documents that can be used to meet residency requirements, which include:

• A valid, unexpired Arizona driver’s license or non-business identification card (“Arizona ID Card”), regardless of whether the address on the Arizona ID Card matches the address on the voter registration form, even if the Arizona ID Card only shows a post office box address.
• Any tribal identification document, including, but not limited to, a census card, tribal government-issued identification card, or tribal registration card, regardless of whether the tribal identification document includes a photograph, a physical address, a post office box, or no address.
• Written confirmation signed by the registrant that he or she is eligible to register under HB 2492.

In addition to protecting voters, the Court also rejected a radical right-wing legal argument.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) intervened to defend this anti-vote scheme, as did the state’s Republican legislative leadership. The RNC argued that the Substantive Provision — a key provision of the Civil Rights Act that prevents votes from being thrown out for trivial errors — was not privately enforceable. Fortunately, the court emphatically rejected this claim today, ruling that: “Non-U.S. plaintiffs may enforce the rights conferred” by the Materiality Order.

The court ruled that “Arizona may not reject a registration on a state form that lacks a person’s state or country of birth and must register the person if he or she is deemed eligible to vote.”

Today’s opinion is a major victory for Arizona voters who will not be unnecessarily disenfranchised by failing to include place of birth on a voter registration application because this information is not necessary to determine whether an individual is eligible to vote.

Read the review here.

You can read more about this case here.

You can learn more about what this case was about here.