The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this December in RNC v. Mi Familia Vote, a case testing whether Arizona can enforce two state laws requiring proof of citizenship at registration and allowing removal of noncitizen registrations from voter rolls within 90 days of an election. Election integrity groups say a ruling against Arizona would leave states powerless to remove noncitizens, minors, or fictitious names from their rolls once discovered.
The Ninth Circuit has already ruled against the Arizona laws, calling them an act of “voter suppression” under the National Voter Registration Act. Attorneys for the Center for Election Confidence, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and Honest Elections Project filed an amicus brief Thursday calling that ruling “absurd” and a threat to state authority.
“Citizenship is a qualification for voting. If states are going to enforce that requirement, they have to be able to verify it,” said Justin Riemer, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. “And when officials find noncitizens on the voter rolls, they should be able to act before an election, not after. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s misguided ruling.”
What the Law Actually Says
The NVRA requires states to finish systematic voter-roll cleanup at least 90 days before a federal election, but allows removals during that window for a voter’s own request, death, criminal conviction, or mental incapacity. The Ninth Circuit found that noncitizen removals don’t fit those listed exceptions and therefore can’t happen in the 90-day window.
The amicus brief argues that logic gets it backwards — noncitizens were never eligible to register in the first place, so the 90-day rule, meant to stop erroneous late removals of legitimate voters, shouldn’t apply to them at all.
“If the Ninth Circuit is right that the 90-day limitation on programs prohibits removal on these bases — because the statute has listed exceptions — States could never remove improperly registered individuals who fall within these categories, no matter when the removal happens or whether it is after a systematic inquiry. Not just that, but these States could never remove these noncitizens who were never eligible to vote.”
The brief also disputes the Ninth Circuit’s reading of what information states may require to verify eligibility, and rejects the idea that a voter’s own citizenship attestation on a form is enough proof, or that a state form must be nearly identical to the federal one to count as
