Supreme Court Votes No on Arizona’s Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law

Arizona has made aggressive efforts in the last decade to pass state laws curbing the rights of illegal immigrants.  Today the Supreme Court struck down another such law, with an odd split among the conservative members of the court.

In a 7-2 vote, the court said that the voter registration provision of Arizona’s 2004 law, Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

The federal law, also known as “Motor Voter,” requires prospective voters to provide one of several possible forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, but does not require proof of citizenship.  A signed statement swearing that a potential voter is a citizen is sufficient to qualify to vote in elections.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, striking down the Arizona law on preemption grounds – that is, that federal law superceded state law in this area, since Motor Voter states that states must “accept and use” a federal registration form.

The state law ordered officials to reject the form if there was no accompanying proof of citizenship.  Arizona argued that a signed statement was not enough:  to combat voter fraud, citizens should present documents proving their eligibility to vote.  But opponents of the Arizona law saw it as part of a nationwide effort to disenfranchise racial minorities.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

“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, of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.  “The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live,” she said.

Four other states had laws requiring documentation similar to Arizona’s, and twelve others were considering it.

Might this case portend a conservative split on other hot button cases soon to be handed down by the court, on affirmative action and same sex marriage?  Stay tuned.

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not necessarily those of Avvo.com.