A judge upheld Arizona's citizenship requirements for voting, but advocates call it a win
Download mp3 (7.63 MB)
A federal judge has upheld two Arizona laws that require proof of citizenship to vote in our state, largely siding with tighter voting restrictions passed by Republicans in the state Legislature in 2022.
Advocacy groups like Mi Familia Vota and Chicanos Por La Causa sued, claiming the laws were unconstitutional and violated the civil rights of minority voters in Arizona. But the judge disagreed last week, saying that the goals of the laws were justified.
The decision was split, though, and advocacy groups are happy about some of the results.
To break it all down, The Show spoke to Jen Fifield, who covers everything elections in Arizona for VoteBeat.
Full interview
LAUREN GILGER: So remind us first what these two laws in question in this lawsuit did.
JEN FIFIELD: So this has been a long saga. They were passed in 2022 by Doug Ducey and the Republican Legislature. They did two main things. They limited voting for voters who didn't provide documents proving citizenship. So federal law requires just you to attest that you're a citizen, where state and local, in state, local elections if you want to vote in them, you have to provide these do documents providing your citizenship proof. So they limited voting for people who did not do that more. And then they also created more investigations on voter citizenships, more regular checks and targeted those who hadn't provided this documentation.
GILGER: OK. So these groups I mentioned and a few others sued over what they said were civil rights violations here. But there seems like there's a little bit for everyone in this ruling. Tell us, you know, what did the judge have to say?
FIFIELD: So in two different rulings, one back in the fall and one now, she threw out anything that further limited federal voting for these federal only voters, the people that haven't provided this documented proof. So they, they can vote for president, they can vote by mail, they can vote even if they don't provide their birthplace. These were all things that under the new law, Republicans were trying to limit. She also throughout a provision that said if a county recorder had quote, reason to believe someone was a noncitizen, they should investigate. The judge found this could be discriminatory in nature to certain groups like naturalized citizens. So those are the parts that were thrown out. But as you said, there are many things were upheld as well.
GILGER: Tell us about those. What are, what's the big picture there in terms of these laws largely being upheld?
FIFIELD: So, in order to vote a full ballot in Arizona, you'll have to provide your proof of residency. That's you live in Arizona. You have a state ID. This could be difficult for students, for example, who just moved here, that's going to be new. And then there are going to be these frequent citizenship checks. So when you register to vote the counties right now do check that you're, you have proof of documentation, but they're gonna be a little more proactive. Now, if they find an ID for a, an immigrant ID, in any way, then you won't be registered to vote at all. And if they find this during these monthly checks they're going to be doing, they're going to refer it to the attorney general as well.
GILGER: OK. OK. And this essentially continues the, the bifurcated voting system that we have, where you can get a federal only ballot or a, a larger one including state races, right?
FIFIELD: It does and it, it, it cements for voters, they really do need to know when you register to vote. You have to have this proof of citizenship, proof of residency in order to get this full ballot. Just do it, do it, do it right away. Try not to get on this federal only list so you won't be subject to these frequent investigations.
GILGER: So in terms of reaction to this most recent ruling, Jen, what have we seen from both sides?
FIFIELD: Well, I think that voting rights groups are disappointed because they really did feel that these citizenships would be discriminatory and targeting naturalized citizens and other minority groups. But they are, they are glad that they, the court dismissed a lot of the, the stronger laws on federal voting. Whereas the Republicans haven't really reacted yet. I, I did reach out to the Senate Republican spokesperson, and they said they will likely appeal the ruling, which leads us to another discussion entirely.
GILGER: Likely appeal. OK And let's talk though, you know, in the meantime, what implications this might have? We just had the Secretary of State Adrian Fontes issue the new elections procedures manual. This was a big deal. It serves as sort of a guide for elections officials all over the state, and we're heading into an election. Does this ruling mean that that will have to change and will it have to change for this election?
FIFIELD: So I think election lawyers across the state are probably asking that right now. I'm confident on one thing, it's illegal to purge voting rolls within 90 days of an election. So with the PPE this month, with the primary, the general, these mass checks, the mass purging wouldn't go in effect until 2025. The question is when someone new registers to vote, will county recorders immediately start using this new process?
GILGER: What's Adrian Fontes had to say about this?
FIFIELD: I haven't seen anything yet. I, I'm pretty sure that his office is looking at it and seeing what changes need to be made to the EPM.
GILGER: OK. And we're looking for likely appeal from the Republican side. What about from the advocacy groups?
FIFIELD: I, you know, I haven't seen that in any of their messaging. You know, I think that they're celebrating what they did, what they were able to block.
