The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens are barred from voting in elections, a decision impacting the nation’s electoral landscape.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court partially rejected a GOP-backed law in Arizona, affecting thousands of registered voters.
- The court voted 5-4, blocking Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship for federal election voting by mail.
- Proponents argue the measures aim to eliminate voter fraud, despite no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting.
- Newly registering voters in Arizona must provide documents like a birth certificate to prove citizenship.
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Non-Citizens Barred from Voting in Elections
The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling barring non-citizens from participating in federal, state, or local elections. This decision reinforces existing laws that restrict voting rights to U.S. citizens, underscoring citizenship status as crucial in America’s electoral framework. The ruling aims to protect the integrity of elections, ensuring that only those with the legal right to vote can influence election outcomes.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked Arizona officials from requiring federally registered voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote by mail or in presidential elections. However, the court allowed limited enforcement, permitting officials to deny registration to people without proof of citizenship who use the state voter registration form. This compromise highlights the balance between securing the electoral process and ensuring voter access.
Congressional Democrats insist that the SAVE Act—which requires proof of citizenship to establish eligibility to vote in federal elections—is unnecessary because federal law (18 USC § 611) already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.
Those making this…
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 10, 2024
Arizona’s Controversial Law
Arizona’s voter registration law, passed in 2022, faced immediate legal challenges and was partially blocked by a judge. Approximately 42,000 Arizonans who registered to vote federally without proof of citizenship would have been blocked from voting if the law was fully implemented. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, has significant implications for the upcoming November election, especially in swing states like Arizona.
“My concern is that changes to the process should not occur this close to an election; it creates confusion for voters,” Fontes said in a statement. “We respect the Court’s decision and will implement these changes while continuing to protect voter access and make a voting simple process.”
Arizonans can still register to vote in presidential and congressional elections without proof of citizenship using the federal registration form. This form requires a sworn statement of citizenship, rather than documentary proof. The decision comes amid ongoing Republican efforts to enforce stricter proof-of-citizenship rules, despite no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting or voter fraud. Proponents argue these measures are designed to eliminate opportunities for fraud.
Let me be very clear – illegal immigrants should not be able to vote in U.S. elections.
Proud to have voted in favor of the SAVE Act, which will require proof of citizenship when registering to vote, as well as allow states to remove noncitizens from its voter rolls.
— Rep. Tom Cole (@TomColeOK04) July 10, 2024
Implications for Other States and Future Elections
The Supreme Court’s order impacts other election-related cases and has broader implications, with voters in Idaho, South Dakota, and Nevada also deciding on similar open primary election measures this November. The decision was issued without detailed legal reasoning, a typical approach for emergency applications. Moreover, this ruling has lit a renewed fire under ongoing debates about voting integrity and access.
Proponents of the law, like Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, expressed support for the ruling. Meanwhile, voting rights advocates and the Biden administration argue that proof of citizenship laws disenfranchise eligible voters, calling for a more inclusive electoral process while maintaining security. The balance between ensuring every eligible vote counts and preventing voter fraud remains a contentious issue.
