|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The U.S. Supreme Court partially granted a request from the Republican National Committee (RNC) allowing Arizona to enforce statutes requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote.
Arizona has a unique voter registration system wherein two voter rolls are maintained – a state roll which requires proof of citizenship to register and a federal roll which does not require proof of citizenship. The bifurcation is the result of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling which held that federal election law preempts the state from requiring applicants use a federal voter registration form to prove they’re legally in the United States.
Nearly a decade later, Arizona attempted to require that registrants using state forms provide documentary proof of their citizenship in order to vote for president – or vote by mail-in ballot – only to lose in federal court again.
“This ruling provides a cautionary note that should discourage officials from considering (the) imposition of restrictive or burdensome proof of citizenship demands or requests for unnecessary information from voters before registering them to vote in federal elections,” said U.S. assistant attorney general Kristen Clarke.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the Arizona statue required officials to “reject voter registration forms based on errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot.”
The RNC saw the ruling differently, arguing a federal district court injunction preventing the implementation of the stature is “an unprecedented abrogation of the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch supported granting a stay to allow Arizona to enforce the entirety of their statute pending the the disposition of the case, while justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett argued against granting a stay at all.
Ultimately, the court decided that Arizona could enforce one of the three statutory sections in question.
Until the court can make further determinations about the legality of the statute as a whole, Arizona can demand “satisfactory evidence of citizenship” to register with the state’s own voter registration form and impose criminal penalties on election officials who knowingly fail to reject applications without the requisite proof of citizenship.
The Supreme Court ruling didn’t stay the hold on provisions preventing people without proof of citizenship from voting so long as they register using the federal registration form, meaning non-citizens won’t be prevented from mail-in voting or voting in the 2024 presidential election, barring a final ruling in Arizona’s favor prior to November 5th.
***
RELATED | BORDER CRISIS: TWENTY-TWO STATES BACK TEXAS
***
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson joined an amicus brief petitioning the Supreme Court to rule in Arizona’s favor prior to the issuance of the order.
“This would seem like common sense,” Wilson said. “If only citizens can vote, what’s wrong with requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote?”
Reached for comment after the court’s order, Wilson said his office is “grateful for this partial victory, but we’ll continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections.”
The amicus brief Wilson joined claims “‘federal policies of non-enforcement” have left states to “bear many of the consequences of unlawful immigration,” and argues states have “an interest in seeing the federalization and degradation of their election security come to an end.”
Voter fraud “breeds distrust of our government,” according to the brief.
Despite the South Carolina attorney general’s support of the right of states to demand registrants prove they are citizens prior to voting, Palmetto State lawmakers have yet to explicitly prohibit noncitizens from voting.
***
To make matters worse, many “GOP” political leaders have attacked those daring to question the current process.
When state representative and former S.C. freedom caucus chairman Adam Morgan publicly objected to welfare agencies providing non-citizens with voter registration forms, he faced immediate scorn from his GOP colleagues.
Morgan’s caucus requested governor Henry McMaster “immediately order state agencies cease and desist distributing voter registration and voter registration declination forms to non-citizens.”
McMaster’s executive agencies are responsible for the distribution of the forms in accordance with 1993 National Voting Rights Act (NVRA). The governor defended the distribution of the forms, instructing Morgan to give the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) his “full and immediate cooperation” after ordering an investigation into the legality of the distribution.
McMaster, an attorney, doubtlessly knew that his agencies were complying with federal law by sending the forms – and likely looked forward to the mainstream media amplifying the message that Morgan, his political rival, was making unfounded claims.
***
***
SLED’s report highlighted the 2024 Legislative Audit Council (LAC)’s review of the state’s election process, which found “no incidences where non-U.S. citizens with state IDs or driver’s licenses had voted.”
The audit “matched the list of active and inactive registered voters against the DMV’s list of non-U.S. citizens with driver’s licenses and state IDs and found no non-U.S. citizens on the list were registered to vote or had recently voted.”
SLED’s report didn’t note the LAC’s finding that their methodology of cross verifying DMV records may have not been sufficient to accurately detect noncitizens voting in South Carolina elections.
“If we used data from non-state government sources or from different time periods, we might have found additional individuals who may have violated state election laws” the report concluded.
While McMaster has focused his voter ID efforts on selectively quoting audit reports to embarrass the members of his own party attempting to address the issue, Virginia governor Glen Younkin and Texas governor Greg Abbott have both removed thousand of noncitizens from their state’s voter rolls after conducting investigations.
And while legislators in Arizona are fighting tooth and nail for their right to ensure that those who vote in their elections are citizens of this country, Palmetto State legislative leaders repeat the refrain that “it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote… you have to check yes on the form that you’re a citizen.”
Can you imagine the state allowing bars and liquor stores to trust their customers to verify their own ages? Of course not… yet that’s currently how our voting system operates.
South Carolina Republican leadership, if they choose to make it a priority, could implement statutes like Arizona’s in the upcoming legislative session. Or, they could continue to pretend it’s not an issue…
Either way, count on FITSNews to report on the latest legal developments pertaining to South Carolina’s elections.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
