The Biden administration has advised the Supreme Court to maintain a hold on parts of an Arizona proof-of-citizenship voter law for the upcoming election. This move comes amidst a legal battle over election rules in the battleground state, which has become a contentious issue in the lead-up to the 2024 campaign season.
In a court filing, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that intervening at this stage could disrupt the orderly administration of the election and potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters who have already registered using the federal form. Arizona's Democratic state officials echoed this sentiment, stating that court intervention at this juncture would be destabilizing.
The Biden administration and civil rights groups have challenged the 2022 law, contending that it violates the National Voter Registration Act by requiring documentary proof of citizenship for individuals using the federal registration form to vote in the presidential election and utilize mail balloting in the state.
On the other hand, the Republican National Committee and state GOP lawmakers have urged the Supreme Court to reinstate the citizenship proof requirement for the upcoming election, following a trial judge's decision to strike it down.
Civil rights groups have successfully challenged another provision of the law that mandates proof of citizenship for individuals using the state voter registration form, arguing that it violates a 2018 consent decree. The decree allowed county officials to verify citizenship status using state DMV records for voters who hadn't provided proof-of-citizenship, a practice that the 2022 law seeks to eliminate.
Republicans have emphasized the issue of non-citizen voting in the 2024 election campaign, asserting that the proof-of-citizenship requirement is necessary. However, the Biden administration has refuted this claim, stating that the requirement could disenfranchise voters and criticizing the rationale behind imposing it on mail-in voting.
Arizona's Secretary of State, a Democrat, has expressed concerns that any changes to the current situation could cause undue hardship for election administrators and confusion among voters. The Supreme Court is under pressure to act swiftly in this case, with an August 22 deadline looming for resolving disputes over ballot initiatives.
