By Corinne Murdock |

On Thursday, the Arizona District Court struck down provisions of two laws requiring proof of citizenship for voters. 

In the 109-page order for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, Judge Susan Bolton ruled that several proof of citizenship provisions within HB2492 and HB2243, “Voting Laws,” violated federal laws pertaining to voting rights. The overturned provisions concerned birthplace requirement disclosures for voter registrations, county recorders investigating voters based on a “reason to believe” someone is a noncitizen, and disclosure of residence in order to register for federal elections.

There are over 19,000 federal-only voters who haven’t submitted proof of citizenship. 

“The Court finds that though it may occur, non-citizens voting in Arizona is quite rare, and non-citizen voter fraud in Arizona is rarer still,” stated Bolton. “But while the Voting Laws are not likely to meaningfully reduce possible non-citizen voting in Arizona, they could help to prevent non-citizens from registering or voting.”

Bolton ruled that HB2492 violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act because its requirement of proof of birthplace for voter registration was immaterial in determining eligibility to vote. Bolton said that since the provision wasn’t retroactive it wouldn’t apply to the approximately one-third of active voter registrations lacking birthplace.

“That Arizona has determined these voters are qualified to vote notwithstanding the lack of any meaningful birthplace information strongly indicates birthplace is immaterial,” said Bolton. 

HB2243’s directive for county recorders to deny voters based on a “reason to believe” that the voter may be a noncitizen violates the Different Practices Provision, Bolton ruled. The judge said the provision would unfairly subject naturalized citizens to citizenship database checks, and not native-born citizens. 

Bolton also ruled that the state couldn’t require individuals registering using federal-only forms to provide documentary proof of residence (DPOR). Bolton determined that the voting laws requiring attestation of residency was sufficient to determine eligibility. 

“Because the Voting Laws require a State Form to include DPOR, the State Form is not ‘equivalent’ to the Federal Form,” said Bolton. “Arizona may not reject State Forms lacking DPOR and must register these applicants as Federal-Only Voters.”

However, Bolton ruled HB2243’s requirement of county recorders to investigate federal-only voters’ citizenship statuses doesn’t violate federal voting law, since the state doesn’t require individuals to submit additional information beyond the federal registration form. Bolton noted that overturning such investigatory efforts would leave states without the ability to discover proof of citizenship.

“Arizona must accept the Federal Form as prima facie proof of an applicant’s eligibility to vote but the NVRA does not preclude Arizona from independently determining that an applicant or voter is ineligible,” said Bolton. “Were the Court to embrace Plaintiffs’ theory that section 6 prohibited a county recorder from requesting information not contained on the Federal Form after confirming non-citizenship, Arizona seems left with no apparent means to request proof of eligibility before cancelling [sic] a registration.”

Bolton further ruled that the county recorders could use federal and state databases to review citizenship information.

Court proceedings revealed that county recorders haven’t submitted to the attorney general a list of all registered voters who haven’t provided documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) by Oct. 31, 2022 as required by HB2492. Therefore, the attorney general hasn’t investigated the citizenship status of any dubious registered voters. 

Contrary to the claims of Democratic lawmakers and activists, Bolton said that neither of the proof of citizenship laws were enacted with the intent of purposeful discrimination. 

“The legislative record lacks any indicia of a nefarious motive,” said Bolton. “And despite [witnesses’] account of Arizona’s history of discrimination, neither expert articulated a persuasive factual nexus between this history and the Fifty-Fifth Legislature’s enactment of the Voting Laws.”

Bolton also ruled that the voting laws primarily imposed burdens on county recorders and the attorney general, not voters. 

“The Voting Laws’ ongoing database checks, investigations by the Attorney General, and potential rejection or cancellation of a voter’s registration are not burdens, but merely the consequences of not providing DPOC,” said Bolton. “Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court concludes that Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide DPOC.”

Bolton indicated that she was open to weighing the socioeconomic burdens for certain individuals — especially those considered marginalized — but that the Democratic parties and activist groups hadn’t presented any witnesses or evidence to prove that the voting laws would impede qualified voters from registering to vote or remaining on the voter rolls. Specifically, they didn’t estimate the quantity or demographics of those federal-only voters who lacked DPOC. 

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.