The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a controversial Arizona voting law last week, partially granting an emergency stay that will limit Arizonans’ ability to register to vote without proof of citizenship.
The decision had the Republican National Committee claiming a critical win to halt noncitizen voting. The state party called it a monumental victory for election integrity. But Laurie Roberts calls it a paperwork shift.
Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic, and she joined The Show along with editorial page editor Elvia Díaz to talk more about it.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: Laurie, this was a complicated case. It started when state lawmakers tried to pass this law kind of tightening voter requirements. It was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. Now we have this partial and temporary, I should say, decision. That essentially means that those registering to vote without proof of citizenship will only be able to do it using a federal registration form, as opposed to the state form.
So in your reading of this, what are the real world implications of this decision?
ROBERTS: Well, I don’t really think that there are a lot of implications to this decision. The Republicans are claiming this huge victory for voter integrity, but the only thing that it does is require that people in the future who don’t have documentary proof of citizenship handy can register to vote — they just can no longer use the state forum. They have to instead use the federal form, but they still will be able to vote in presidential and congressional elections as federal law allows.
So in essence, it doesn’t really do anything. The law was passed in 2022, and the Republicans had hoped to knock off tens of thousands of voters — what we call federal only voters — off the voter rolls, contending that if they haven’t provided proof of citizenship, they must then be here illegally. Or I guess that’s their thinking.
A Votebeat analysis has shown that most of those people are actually grouped around college campuses in Flagstaff, Tempe and Tucson — which makes me presume that that’s really not a hotbed of illegal immigrants who are registering, but they’re probably college students from out of state who just didn’t bring their birth certificates to Arizona when they came here.
And the Supreme Court met them — I would say not even half way, maybe a third of the way — and decided, well, yes, Arizona, you can refuse to allow them to register to vote on your state form, but they can still vote. So really, not a whole lot changes.
GILGER: So they can’t vote in local races. They can vote for members of Congress, Senate, the presidential race, the big-ticket items.
ROBERTS: Correct. But they already could only vote in federal races. They already were barred from voting in state and local elections as a result of the 2004 law that was enacted by voters to require documented proof of citizenship in order to vote. And I would like to point out that we are the only state in the United States that requires documentary proof of citizenship.
So people keep sort of referring to this, there’s something shady going in Arizona. In fact, we have tougher requirements to register to vote than any other state in the Union.
GILGER: This seems kind of obvious on its face, Elvia. It seems like of course you can’t vote if you are not a U.S. citizen. That’s already a crime. And as Laurie pointed out, there is a Votebeat analysis that shows that most of these federal only voters who didn’t have proof of citizenship when they register to vote are focused around college campuses. What do you think this is about, Elvia?
ELVIA DÍAZ: It’s about undermining the election and undermining confidence in the vote, not only in Arizona across the nation. Just like Laurie explained, this really doesn’t change a lot. It’s already the law, yet they’re claiming victory. That kind of rhetoric goes everywhere, right? And it sort of feeds into this idea that undocumented immigrants, people not here legally, are voting and taking advantage of of the system.
Look at what at the federal level they’re trying to do by essentially saying that hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants are crossing the border with the idea of just voting. That’s ridiculous. But you know that they know that. They know this. The Republicans pushing for this kind of stuff are not fools. They’re pretty smart. They know what they’re doing. And so it’s just to get people into thinking, “Oh my gosh, people are voting illegally.” That’s what it means from my point of view.
ROBERTS: Let me also point out here that if you are a federal only voter and you register to vote, the state law still requires county recorders, the county elections officials to go through the state voter rolls and check them against various databases: Department of Homeland Security, etc. So if they find out that you are a federal only voter and you really aren’t eligible to vote, they’re going to be coming after you.
And it’s a crime. And if you are here illegally, you will be deported and barred from ever coming back. So it kind of begs the question of, would someone really cross the border here, hoping to become part of this country and then say, “oh, I think I’ll go vote, knowing that if I’m caught, I’m going to be deported and can’t ever come back”?
GILGER: So a lot of voting rights advocates who have fought against this have said it’s like fear mongering, like you’re kind of pointing out Elvia. But also after this decision late last week, many election officials are saying that there’s another layer of concern here. Just that this could create confusion for voters really close to a very major election. Are you worried about that, Elvia?
DÍAZ: Well, yes. And just look at the headlines claiming a huge victory when there wasn’t really one, right? In the headlines, depending on what outlet you are reading. And I think this is why the Supreme Court decided to do this. It's a temporary thing. They’re not looking at the merits of the appeal. That will do that later. It is too close. And people do get confused. And obviously a lot of people are in the process of registering to vote.
And it is a little bit confusing to have two forms, but it’s pretty easy once you get to it, right? I mean, do you have proof of citizenship? Yes or no. And so which form are you going to be able to use it. But on the other hand, it also gives us the opportunity to talk about this, to really explain why there are two forms, to register to vote. It gives us an opportunity to talk about, but who’s talking about it is also important here.
GILGER: Laurie, let me end with you and a question about the broader implications here. This case may not make much of a difference heading into November from what you’re saying. But how it ends up could have major implications for how voter registration laws work in other states eventually, right?
ROBERTS: Yeah. At the end of this case, if they decide to throw out the National Voter Registration Act, which I think was passed 30 or 40 years ago, certainly that will change a lot. Every state then will move to document the proof of citizenship, as will the federal government. But I will note that when the Legislature first tried to do this in 2004, the case did ultimately go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court favored the National Voter Registration Act.
They came down and said that was legal, that it would be illegal to require documented proof of citizenship because so many people, or at least enough people would be disenfranchised because they can’t provide that proof.
