WASHINGTON—Over the past two days, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have issued decisions in two important cases that are critical to the fight to make sure Arizona’s elections remain safe and secure.  

On August 21st, the Arizona Supreme Court  ordered  a lower court to examine whether those supporting a ballot initiative that would authorize ranked-choice voting had the requisite number of signatures to include the measure on the ballot. The challengers allege that supporters submitted almost  40,000  duplicate signatures to put the proposed amendment on the ballot.  

A day later, on August 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court  overruled  a lower federal court and allowed part of an Arizona law to take effect that would require proof of citizenship by those registering to vote using a form provided by the state. But a majority of the Justices declined to allow Arizona to enforce a different provision of the law that would have required those who registered using a federal form to show proof of citizenship before voting by mail or voting for president. The lower court found that the provision of the law violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.  

Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, made the following statement in response to this latest legal activity in Arizona:  

“Congress needs to update the NVRA to make clear that states are not prohibited from seeking proof of citizenship from those who register to vote using the federal voter registration form.

 

“In fact, given concerns around, and documented instances of non-citizens registering and voting, other states should follow Arizona’s lead and take the commonsense step of requiring proof of citizenship when voters register using a state form. Safe and secure elections where only eligible voters cast ballots should be a bipartisan issue of the utmost importance to everyone. Unfortunately, for many on the Left, that doesn’t seem to be the case.” 

Background:  

Rank-choice voting is a confusing and chaotic process that would have the practical effect of disenfranchising many American voters. Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky has  explained  that ranked-choice voting “is really a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allow candidates with marginal support from voters to win elections.”