BREAKING.🚨
A coalition of 24 State Attorneys General, and respective counsels, have filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of an Emergency Stay to allow the State of Arizona to require citizenship to vote in federal elections.
The Dhillon Law Group, on behalf of the Republican Party of Arizona, argues:
"The Constitution does not support the district court’s holding that the NVRA, in an exercise of Congress’s Elections Clause power to regulate the manner of congressional elections, preempts a state’s choice pursuant to its power under the Electors Clause to require voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship to vote in elections to appoint that state’s presidential electors. The Court should therefore immediately stay the District Court’s injunction to the extent it interferes with Arizona’s constitutional power to choose how it appoints its presidential electors," said attorney @pnjaban.
The Honest Elections Project, a non-partisan group, argues:
"In a novel decision that would disrupt absentee regulations nationwide, the district court held that the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona’s law and enjoined it. The court identified no express preemption language, but found preemption based on some undefined combination of three elements: the NVRA’s requirement that States 'accept and use' the Federal Form for voter registration, its confirmation that States can require first-time voters to vote by mail, and a couple of its purpose statements about increasing voter registration. None of this individually or in combination suffices to meet the high threshold of showing preemption, especially in an area in which 'the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them'."
"The NVRA, unsurprisingly, focuses on voter registration, and evidently no court before has held it to preempt state regulations of voting methods."
The Immigration Reform Law Institute argues:
"The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was passed to 'increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote for Federal office,' and to 'protect the integrity of the electoral process'.”
"Arizona’s Legislature enacted Arizona House Bill 2243 (HB 2243) and Arizona House Bill 2492 (HB 2492) to improve election integrity by ensuring that voter qualifications are enforced and that voter rolls are accurate. HB 2492 updates voter qualifications to require documentary proof of citizenship. HB 2492 further provides that failure to include proof of citizenship on a state voter registration form is grounds for the application to be rejected by the county recorder. In accordance with ITCA, these new documentary proofs are not required for applicants using the Federal Form to register to vote in congressional elections." [...]
"This Court is likely to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter, as the Court often does under Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) to guard against litigation’s interference with elections close to an election."
The RNC, in its Emergency Application for Stay, argues:
"Voting by non-citizens, both legal and illegal, is real.2 The typical rejoinder is to claim that few non-citizens vote. On its own terms, though, the answer at least acknowledges that the problem persists. But it also ignores that even small voting blocs can have outsized effects on electoral outcomes. That effect is most obvious in local elections."
"There is every reason to believe this problem of non-citizen voting has gotten worse, as the number of aliens in the United States has undeniably grown. One study suggests there were over 11 million illegal aliens in the country in 2019."
"Each of those aliens represents another possible opening for voter fraud, for each represents a probability—no matter how small—that they will vote illegally. Add to that the other possible sources of noncitizen voting—such as aliens here legally but who cannot vote or who have overstayed their visas—and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear."
The State Attorneys General argues:
"This Court has repeatedly instructed that the Purcell principle bars federal courts from enjoining the enforcement of state election laws with an election impending. The principle recognizes the important interests state officials have in protecting their elections and avoiding voter confusion. But the Ninth Circuit turned this principle against the enforcement of state election-integrity laws."
"Applicants need prompt relief. Because counties need to print ballots well in advance of the election, the Secretary of State 'has advised that the deadline to resolve' ballot-referendum litigation is August 22, 2024."
