Justices strike down Arizona voting law
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision is a win for liberals who hope to expand access to the polls and a loss for conservatives who are concerned about potential election fraud.
State’s proof of citizenship requirement goes beyond federal law, Supreme Court says, but adds that states can petition for changes.
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court handed a victory to voting rights groups Monday by saying Arizona cannot add to federal voter registration requirements by demanding proof of citizenship.
At the same time, however, the court spelled out how the state and others that favor stiffer voter registration rules can try to go beyond the more lenient federal law. And its decision could be overshadowed this year and next by more sweeping civil rights decisions in the areas of voting, education and housing.
Within the next 10 days, the justices are slated to render judgment on college affirmative-action programs and a landmark federal law’s requirement that certain states with a history of discrimination check any proposed voting changes with the federal government. On Monday, they agreed to hear a new case that could make it harder to prove housing discrimination.
The Arizona ruling, which could affect other states, is at first blush a victory for liberals who want to expand access to the polls and a defeat for conservatives more concerned about potential election fraud.
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement went too far beyond the 1993 federal “motor voter” law that was designed to simplify voter registration procedures.
The federal law requires registrants to claim U.S. citizenship on a mail-in postcard, under penalty of perjury. The Arizona law requiring separate physical proof of citizenship was approved by voters in 2004.
During the next three years, more than 30,000 people were turned away for failing to provide documentation, and voter registration dropped by 44% in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.
While the decision upholds congressional authority over federal elections, it specifies that states can petition for changes and challenge adverse rulings — likely portending future lawsuits. The ruling “gave us a path to victory,” state Attorney General Tom Horne said. “It’s just a delay in our winning.”
The federal law “forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form,” Scalia said in announcing his decision.
His customary soulmate on the right, Justice Clarence Thomas, argued in dissent that the Constitution gives states the authority to determine voters’ qualifications, and the federal law cannot countermand it.
The verdict came a year after the court issued a split decision on Arizona’s first-in-the-nation immigration law. The court tossed out several provisions designed to crack down on illegal immigrants but upheld the most controversial one — allowing police to check immigration papers while enforcing other laws.
Three other states — Alabama, Georgia and Kansas — require proof of citizenship before residents can register to vote, while Tennessee has a less stringent version. About 30 states have voter ID requirements at the polls, designed to thwart impostors seeking to cast illegal ballots.
“States cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements.”
Nina Perales, MALDEF
The ruling was hailed by votingrights groups. “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,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).
The case represents the lesser of two voting rights cases before the court this term. Far more significant is Shelby County v. Holder, an Alabama county’s challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law requires mostly Southern states with a history of discrimination to clear proposed voting changes with the federal government before implementing them. Arizona is one of those states.
“It is our hope that the court will continue in this vein when it issues the Shelby v. Holder decision,” said Barbara Arnwine, president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law. “It would be a false promise for today’s decision to promise equal access to the ballot and for an adverse ruling in Shelby to snatch this away.”
That case and the challenge to the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy have made racial and ethnic rights a dominant theme for the court this term. On Monday, the justices assured race will be back on the agenda next term by agreeing to consider a New Jersey township’s challenge to the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
The housing case is similar to one from St. Paul that the court previously agreed to consider before the city, at the urging of the Obama administration, dropped its appeal. It involves the effort by Mount Holly, N.J., to demolish predominately black low-income housing and replace it with pricier homes.
Lower courts have ruled that minority groups need only prove they are disparately affected, not that the intent was to discriminate. But the justices agreed to hear Mount Holly’s appeal, creating the potential that they could set a higher standard for housing-discrimination lawsuits.
That case is as important in terms of housing policy as the Alabama and Texas cases now pending before the court are for education and voting rights, said Jon Greenbaum, legal director for the lawyers committee and one of the winning attorneys in the Arizona case.
“The stakes are high,” Greenbaum said.