Voting Rights Groups File Amicus Brief to Protect Arizona’s Eligible Voters from Documentary Proof of Citizenship Law
The League of Women Voters of the United States, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Secure Families Initiative, and Modern Military Association of America filed an amicus brief this week in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
That lawsuit challenges Arizona’s H.B. 2492, a 2022 law that prohibits Arizonans who register to vote without submitting documentary proof of citizenship (e.g., a birth certificate or a passport) from voting for president in any federal election — a provision that was in September 2023. Arizona already requires voters to register with documentary proof of citizenship for state elections.
In their amicus brief, the groups respond to a groundless theory put forth by Arizona legislators and the Republican National Committee that Congress does not have the authority to oversee presidential elections, thus, the Arizona Legislature would be free to require documentary proof of citizens for Arizonians voting for president.
The brief notes that history and precedent show that the Elections Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution empower Congress to regulate presidential elections, and the Arizona Legislature cannot strip Congress of that authority.
The courts have consistently ruled against these numerous attempts by Arizona legislators to implement a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for federal elections, including the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 and the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, which struck down a number of provisions in H.B. 2492.
Separately, the Republican National Committee and Arizona legislators recently filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court asking to revive the law by claiming Congress does not have the authority to regulate presidential elections. Changing Arizona’s long-standing voter registration practices in advance of the fast-approaching 2024 election would inject chaos and confusion into the process.
The amicus brief makes clear that implementation of H.B. 2492 would only cause extreme confusion about voter registration in Arizona and lead to eligible voters in Arizona being disenfranchised because they would be prohibited from voting in presidential elections. This law is an attack on the National Voter Registration Act and one of the latest of many attempts to disenfranchise eligible voters in Arizona by making it harder to register to vote.
Amici are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Dēmos, and pro bono counsel at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
The following comments are from amici:
“Arizonans need to know that H.B. 2492 is an intimidation tactic,” said Pinny Sheoran, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona. “Requiring proof of citizenship, a solution in search of a problem, will allow the state to further suppress voters, especially voters of color. There is no reason to make voter registration more difficult by not allowing voters to use the state form to register for federal-only elections. LWV Arizona will continue to stand up for voters and fight laws that do not serve the best interest of Arizona voters.”
“There is no evidence that noncitizens vote in federal elections, so laws like H.B. 2492 are completely unnecessary,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States. “Requiring proof of citizenship severely burdens the right to vote in many communities, and removing presidential elections from the protections of the NVRA would create chaos and new avenues to disenfranchise voters across the nation. The League will not stand for laws that disenfranchise voters from making their voices heard.”
“The legal theory being presented in this case threatens military families’ ability to irrevocably participate in the very democracy we serve to protect,” said Sarah Streyder, executive director of Secure Families Initiative. “It took decades for our community — 50% of whom are voters of color — to fight for and earn these crucial federal protections, which protect us no matter where in the world the military sends us.”
“Military service members and their families face unique challenges when registering to vote and voting which translates to lower turnout when compared with civilian voters,” said Rachel Branaman, executive director of Modern Military Association of America. “As state legislation pose direct challenges to the lives and liberties of military families, it’s imperative that eligible military voters and their families do not face additional voting barriers. There are almost 50,000 active-duty service members and family members living in Arizona and countless Arizona natives serving out of state who would potentially be disenfranchised by a change to voter registration practices.”
Amicus brief is here.
Case background: /cases/mi-familia-vota-v-fontes-amicus
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Voting Rights
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (Amicus)
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”