SCOTUS partially approves Arizona voting law requiring proof of citizenship

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Welcome! You have been invited by dermothalcyon to join our community. Please click here to register.
In a 5-4 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court gave a partial victory to Republicans trying to enforce proof of citizenship when voting in Arizona.

The court was asked to allow enforcement of sections of Arizona law requiring documented proof of citizenship to cast a ballot in the presidential election, including when voting by mail.

"The Constitution gives states the power to set voter qualifications, and Arizona is leading the charge to ensure ONLY CITIZENS vote in our elections," the Arizona GOP tweeted. "This case has the potential to prevent non-citizen voting once and for all, which should have been the case all along."

An emergency application for stay by the Republican National Committee argues that voter integrity is a "problem" that’s gone unchecked, particularly with so many "illegal aliens" in the country.
.
The Supremes ruled that when it comes to the election of the president federal law prevails and voters who fill out a federal election form which does not require proof of citizenship can still vote for the president.

For all other offices and voter propositions, the states can require proof of citizenship before people are allowed to vote.
.
When it came to ruling, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch would have granted the application in full, while Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson would have denied the application in full.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh provided a compromise of sorts with their deciding votes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sc...trying-enforce-proof-citizenship-vote-arizona

Arizona, represented by Attorney General Kris Mayes, opposed the RNC’s request. Mayes acknowledged the state’s interest in defending and enforcing the law, but she countered that the “State also has an interest in smoothly administering its laws, especially for elections.” Indeed, she wrote, “putting the district court’s injunction on hold now” would be “destabilizing,” because the state has not been enforcing the provisions at the center of the dispute. :doh:
.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/...-citizenship-law-for-2024-voter-registration/
 
Back
Top