In a new trial against Arizona, plaintiffs argue that two laws passed in 2022 will disenfranchise voters if they go into effect because they create stricter proof of citizenship requirements.
Several voting rights groups say that Republican-supported laws are unconstitutional for requiring voters to prove they’re citizens and account for their place of birth.
Both laws are largely blocked from taking effect, pending the outcome of the trial.
The laws were sponsored in the Legislature by Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) who was a representative at the time. The first law, introduced as House Bill 2243, would require county recorders to remove registered voters from voter rolls if they cannot prove under new procedures that the voters are United State citizens. Or even if the county recorder has “reason to believe” the voters are not citizens.
The language of the law would make it a felony for the county recorders not to comply.
The National Voter Registration Act requires every state to accept the federal voter registration form which has voters check a box attesting to the fact that they’re a citizen, rather than having to prove it with documentation.
Arizona passed a conflicting ballot measure in 2004, but it was challenged, and the ballot measure was ruled unconstitutional.
Voters who register in Arizona using the state forms do have to provide proof of citizenship.
Under the second challenged law, introduced as House Bill 2492,voters using the federal form to register to vote, would not be allowed to vote in presidential elections, or by mail using early ballots, until they provided proof of citizenship to election officials within 10 days of getting the federal form.
It’s only slightly different than having to provide that proof while registering to vote, but proponents of the law hope that the difference is enough to make it legal.
The law would also require a voter to list their place of birth to register to vote, although the defense and plaintiffs agree that birthplace and citizenship are unrelated.
When House Bill 2492 was movingthrough the Legislature, the House rules attorneys warned that it would “likely present a preemption issue with the National Voter Registration Act.”
On Sep. 14, presiding federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked several provisions of House Bill 2243 and House Bill 2492 respectively, from going into effect. She found that the restriction on presidential elections and mail-in voting are preempted.
One of the largest remaining questions that will be answered by the trial relates to recorders purging voters from county rolls. “There remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether the purge provisions violate the Civil Rights Act or enable Arizona to contravene Section 8,” Bolton wrote.
As the bills haven’t truly gone into effect, the plaintiff hasn’t proven that they’ve caused any injury. Instead, the first four witnesses called on Monday testified that the laws could be harmful.
Three of the witnesses were representatives of voter advocacy groups who said they’re worried the laws would disenfranchise voters.
The ongoing case is actually a consolidation of several challenges to the bills. The trial is scheduled to take 10 days.
