States File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote

In a recent development, a coalition of 24 states has come together to file a brief urging the US Supreme Court to uphold an Arizona law that mandates proof of citizenship to vote. This move has sparked a heated debate on the issue of voting rights and the prevention of non-citizens from participating in elections.

The states argue that voting by non-citizens, whether legal or illegal, is a real issue that needs to be addressed. They claim that the typical response of dismissing the impact of non-citizen voting as insignificant is misguided. By requiring proof of citizenship, the Arizona law aims to ensure that only eligible voters are able to cast their ballots and have a say in the democratic process.

This brief comes at a time when the issue of election integrity is at the forefront of political discussions. With concerns about voter fraud and the security of the voting process, states are taking proactive measures to safeguard the integrity of elections and maintain public trust in the democratic system.

As the debate continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond to the arguments presented in the brief. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for voting laws across the country and shape the future of election regulations.

Overall, the filing of this brief underscores the importance of addressing concerns about voter eligibility and ensuring that only citizens have the right to vote in US elections. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

BREAKING: A coalition of 24 states have filed a brief to the US Supreme Court, urging them to uphold an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to vote

“Voting by non-citizens, both legal and illegal, is real. The typical rejoinder is to claim that few non-citizens vote.… pic.twitter.com/I2nJxuCTiu

— George (@BehizyTweets) August 15, 2024

BREAKING: A coalition of 24 states have filed a brief to the US Supreme Court, urging them to uphold an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship to vote

In recent years, the issue of voter fraud has become a hot-button topic in American politics. With the rise of illegal immigration and concerns about the integrity of our electoral system, many states have taken steps to ensure that only eligible citizens are able to vote. One such state is Arizona, which passed a law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before casting their ballots.

But this law has not been without controversy. Critics argue that it disenfranchises eligible voters who may not have easy access to the required documentation, such as a birth certificate or passport. They also claim that instances of non-citizens attempting to vote are extremely rare, and that the law is unnecessary and discriminatory.

So, what is the truth behind these claims? Do non-citizens actually vote in significant numbers, and is the Arizona law justified in requiring proof of citizenship? Let’s take a closer look at the facts.

### How common is voter fraud by non-citizens?

While it is difficult to determine the exact number of non-citizens who have voted in US elections, there have been documented cases of non-citizens attempting to register and cast ballots. In 2017, the Heritage Foundation compiled a database of 1,071 proven instances of voter fraud, including 938 criminal convictions. Of these, 10 cases involved non-citizens voting illegally. While this may seem like a small number, it is still a cause for concern, as even a few fraudulent votes can impact the outcome of an election.

### Why is proof of citizenship important?

Proponents of laws requiring proof of citizenship argue that it is essential to maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. By verifying that all voters are US citizens, these laws help to prevent non-citizens from influencing the outcome of elections. They also help to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote are able to do so, preserving the principle of “one person, one vote.”

### What are the arguments against proof of citizenship laws?

Critics of laws like Arizona’s argue that they are unnecessary and discriminatory. They claim that instances of non-citizens attempting to vote are extremely rare, and that the burden of providing proof of citizenship falls disproportionately on minority and low-income voters. They also argue that these laws can create barriers to voting for eligible citizens who may not have easy access to the required documentation.

### What is the legal basis for the Arizona law?

The Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote was first passed in 2004 through a ballot initiative known as Proposition 200. It was later challenged in court, with opponents arguing that it conflicted with federal voting laws such as the National Voter Registration Act. In 2013, the US Supreme Court upheld the law in a 7-2 decision, ruling that Arizona was within its rights to require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

### What is the current status of the law?

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Arizona law has faced continued legal challenges. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision of the law that required individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form. However, the rest of the law remains in effect, including the requirement to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote using the state form.

### What are the implications of the coalition of states filing a brief to the US Supreme Court?

The coalition of 24 states filing a brief in support of the Arizona law is a significant development in the ongoing debate over voter fraud and proof of citizenship requirements. These states are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Arizona law, arguing that it is necessary to protect the integrity of the electoral system and prevent non-citizens from voting illegally. Their brief highlights the importance of state sovereignty in regulating elections and the need for common-sense measures to ensure that only eligible citizens are able to vote.

In conclusion, the issue of proof of citizenship requirements for voting is a complex and contentious one. While critics argue that these laws are unnecessary and discriminatory, proponents maintain that they are essential to preventing voter fraud and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. With the coalition of states filing a brief to the US Supreme Court, the debate is likely to continue, with the ultimate decision resting in the hands of the highest court in the land.

Sources:
1. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf