It is no secret that an overwhelming number of Americans believe that only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections. It arguably is and ought to be the first and primary qualification to vote. But what good is that requirement if it isn’t verified? In other words, without proof of citizenship, we are relying on a simple stroke of a pen or pencil on a registration form, checking a small box attesting to citizenship.
That’s why in 2004 Arizona voters approved a measure to require proof of citizenship before registering to vote. But, in the 20 years since, that requirement has been whittled away and now there are tens of thousands of people voting in Arizona elections (often referred to as “Federal only” voters) without ever having provided evidence of their citizenship.
In response to this explosion of ‘Federal Only’ voters, the Arizona legislature passed two landmark bills, HB2492 and HB2243, to require proof of citizenship and regular, enhanced voter roll maintenance to ensure only eligible individuals are registering and voting in our elections.
What happened next shouldn’t surprise anyone that has watched the left fight every reasonable voter integrity measure around the country. As soon as both bills were signed into law, a dozen liberal organizations and the Biden Justice Department sued in federal court, claiming that the measures were unconstitutional, illegal, and (of course) racist.
The case was given to Bill Clinton appointed judge Susan Bolton, and after a year of litigation, she issued a confusing, disjointed two-part ruling that is destined for appeal. And while a few positives can be gleaned from the decision, the bad and ugly from the liberal opinion far outweighed the good…
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is urging the Arizona legislature to appeal a ruling from the Arizona District Court striking down portions of two laws requiring proof of citizenship from voters. AFEC lobbied for and assisted in the drafting of the contested laws; now, it says it plans to file briefs in support of the appeals it hopes the legislature will file. The state has over 19,000 federal-only voters who haven’t submitted proof of citizenship.
Federal judge Susan Bolton ruled last week against provisions within HB2492 and HB2243 requiring proof of birthplace for voter registrations, investigations by county recorders based on the belief a voter is a noncitizen, and the voter’s disclosure of residence in order to register for federal elections. AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a press release that while it was a relief Bolton didn’t overturn the laws in their entirety, the provisions she did strike down were consequential.
“Though Arizonans can take solace in the fact that an activist judge didn’t completely dismantle these reasonable and commonsense laws, we are extremely disappointed in her decision to strike down several lawful provisions that we expect will be upheld on appeal,” said Mussi. “Officials across all branches and jurisdictions of our government should be working to uphold the integrity of our laws and to ensure that the votes of American citizens are not canceled or compromised by even a single illegal vote.”
Although Bolton struck down core provisions of the laws, she disagreed with the claims of activist groups that the legislators passed them with racist intent. However, Bolton did write that AFEC’s language in lobbying materials distributed to legislators was potentially discriminatory against Latinos. Per court documents, AFEC referred to illegal immigrants as “illegals.”
“[AFEC] disseminated lobbying materials by email to Arizona legislators that described how the Voting Laws would prevent ‘illegals’ from voting in Arizona elections,” said Bolton. “[T]he use of ‘code words’ may demonstrate discriminatory intent, and the term ‘illegals’ can evince racial animus for members of the Latino community in Arizona.”
“Illegals” is slang for individuals of any race and any country who migrated into the U.S. illegally, meaning the term isn’t restricted in its scope to Latino illegal immigrants.
Mussi also stated in AFEC’s press release that Bolton’s assessment amounted to a false accusation of discrimination. He said Bolton’s implication of racism was “laughable” considering that the illegal immigrants causing the border crisis have hailed from nearly all countries across the globe.
“It is outrageous that Judge Bolton would use an official court opinion to falsely accuse concerned and law-abiding American citizens of having racist intent in our efforts to pass legislation to strengthen election integrity in this state,” said Mussi. “This accusation is especially laughable when we consider the state of the open border, where millions of men, women, and children from more than 160 countries of origin have illegally crossed into America – many of whom are taking up residence and receiving benefits on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. It shouldn’t take a grassroots advocacy organization to point out the constitutional responsibility of a federal court, yet sadly, this is the present state of our nation.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
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.
The federal government and state governments across the country should be doing everything they can to ensure election integrity going forward. Over the past few years, the Arizona legislature has taken this to heart. But the Left has been fighting against every legitimate election reform that comes from conservatives. Not only are they filing lawsuits in court, but they’ve been deploying a new tactic that threatens the First Amendment.
Lawsuits Against Election Integrity Bills
In 2021, the Arizona legislature passed, and then-Governor Ducey signed into law SB 1485—a law designed to clean up Arizona’s early voter list. Then in 2022, state lawmakers followed that up with HB 2243 (to ensure regular voter list maintenance) and HB 2492 (to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections).
These are commonsense laws that everyone should be able to get behind, but the Left gave up commonsense years ago…
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are both accessible and secure—where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. It is the duty of the legislature to pass bills that ensure this, the Governor to sign those bills into law, and the Attorney General to enforce those laws.
But the Secretary of State’s role is different. This elected official is supposed to provide an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that provides impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law. But just like his predecessor in this role before him (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), our current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has filled his EPM with unlawful provisions…
