The Biden administration has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject requests from Republican legislative leaders and allies who want to block individuals without proof of citizenship from voting in this year’s presidential election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
In a filing submitted on Friday, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that lower courts correctly ruled that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) takes precedence over a 2022 state law that imposes new voting restrictions. Prelogar emphasized that while states can regulate their own elections, only Congress has the authority to determine eligibility for federal elections.
The legal filings from House Speaker Ben Toma, Senate President Warren Petersen, and the Republican National Committee do not seek a final decision on the legality of the state law. Instead, they request permission for the state to enforce the 2022 law while its legality is challenged in court.
This request could have an immediate impact. More than 41,000 Arizonans registered to vote using a federal form that does not require proof of citizenship but includes a sworn statement of eligibility. If the court sides with the GOP leaders and the national party, these voters could be barred from participating in the presidential election.
The significance of this issue is underscored by the close margin of the 2020 presidential race, where Biden won by just 10,457 votes. Attorneys opposing the voter restriction argue that the votes of those using the federal-only form are unlikely to favor the GOP candidate. According to recent figures, only 14.3% of these voters are Republicans, while 27.4% are Democrats, and 53.6% are unaffiliated with any party.
At the heart of the dispute is the interaction between the NVRA and the 2022 state law. The NVRA allows individuals to register to vote using a federal form, and the Supreme Court, in a 2013 ruling, affirmed that states must accept this form as sufficient for registration.
The 2022 state law requires county recorders to use specific databases to verify citizenship for those using the federal form. If verification is not possible, the law demands “documentary proof of citizenship,” with failure to provide this proof resulting in ineligibility to vote in presidential elections.
While the state has conceded that it cannot restrict these voters from participating in congressional elections—due to Congress’s authority over election procedures—Toma, Petersen, and the Republican National Committee argue that this does not apply to presidential elections, allowing for such restrictions.
Prelogar countered this argument, stating that Congress has the authority to regulate presidential elections and protect them from corruption. She noted that federal laws prohibit threats and coercion in presidential elections and that the Constitution allows Congress to oversee presidential election laws to prevent corruption.
Prelogar also emphasized that the president represents all U.S. voters and that presidential elections involve a critical national interest, which justifies congressional regulation. She further pointed out that amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War empower Congress to enact laws like the NVRA to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
This issue first arose when U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked the state from enforcing the law last year, citing potential harm to voter participation.