Civil and Human Rights

US top court invalidates Arizona voter registration law

By Chantal Valery

 

The US Supreme Court on Monday invalidated a law that required people to show proof of nationality when registering to vote in the state of Arizona.

 

The law in the southwestern Republican-ruled state, put in place to keep undocumented immigrants from casting ballots, required documents that the federal government does not ask for when people complete a federal voter registration form.

 

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the panel’s majority.

 

This decision — backed by seven of the nine justices — only affects Arizona, which borders Mexico and often spars with Washington over immigration issues. But four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar laws. Twelve additional states envisage doing the same.

 

The ruling is a victory for activists who saw it as a new infringement on the rights of minorities.

 

“The court has taken a vital step in ensuring the ballot remains free, fair, and accessible for all citizens,” said Laughlin McDonald of the American Civil Liberties Union.

 

In the United States, about 13 million people lack documentary proof of their citizenship, according to the group.

 

In Arizona alone, 90 percent of the more than 31,000 US citizens whose voter registration applications were denied were actually born in the United States, it added.

 

“Today’s decision is a victory for the federal government’s authority to regulate federal elections and protect the right to vote,” said Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

 

Nina Perales of MALDEF, a Latino civil rights organization, said “today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law.”

 

“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all US citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live.”

 

The case was taken to the high court by Jesus Gonzalez, a naturalized American, whose registration was rejected under Arizona law.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 21, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.