Three Republican secretaries of state are warning the Supreme Court that a federal appeals court has effectively gutted their constitutional authority to keep noncitizens off voter rolls, setting the stage for what could become the most significant election integrity case in over a decade.
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Nebraska filed an amicus brief Friday in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, reported by The Federalist, which argues the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a dangerously broad reading of the National Voter Registration Act that would “obliterate” states’ rights to determine who qualifies to vote in their own elections.
The case centers on two critical questions: whether states can require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and whether they can remove confirmed noncitizens from voter rolls during the 90 days before a federal election, the so-called “quiet period” established by the NVRA.
Arizona’s election integrity laws, which require recurring database checks to identify and remove noncitizens, have been under relentless attack from left-wing activists. The state allows applicants without proof of citizenship to register for congressional races but bars them from presidential elections and mail-in voting.
Democrats and their allied “voter rights” groups have labeled such common-sense provisions as “voter suppression.”
The secretaries of state argue the Constitution’s voter qualification clause clearly grants states the authority to determine who can cast a ballot. By declaring Arizona’s laws unlawful, they contend, the 9th Circuit “erased” a fundamental constitutional boundary.
Their brief warns that if the NVRA truly preempts states from enforcing citizenship requirements, the federal law itself may be unconstitutional.
“If the NVRA preempts States from imposing and enforcing a citizen qualification to vote in their elections, it creates serious constitutional doubt about the constitutionality of the NVRA itself,” the brief argues.
The problem of noncitizens on voter rolls is not theoretical. In July, New Jersey Democrat Gov. Mikie Sherrill acknowledged some 6,600 noncitizens had been discovered on the Garden State’s voter rolls. Hundreds had voted in recent elections.
This case has roots in a 2013 Supreme Court decision, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. That ruling held Arizona could not require proof of citizenship on federal registration forms, where applicants need only attest they are citizens. However, the court did not bar states from requiring proof on state registration forms.
The Supreme Court weighed in before the 2024 election, granting a stay on a lower court ruling that favored leftist groups. The justices allowed individuals using the federal form to vote in the presidential race and by mail.
Now the high court appears ready to settle the lingering questions that decision left unresolved.
The amicus brief argues the 9th Circuit extended the 2013 ruling “well beyond” its original intent. The appeals court, they claim, “collapses the distinction between registration and voting, and treats the NVRA’s 90-day removal safeguard as a prohibition on removing persons who were never eligible to register in the first place.”
At its core, the case will determine whether the federal government can override states in deciding who participates in state-run elections, a power the Constitution has reserved to the states since the founding.
