Reuters: “The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether Arizona may demand that voters show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.” More info from SCOTUSBlog.
The Court granted only the portion of the case involving the meaning of the Elections Clause. Here’s what I wrote in April about the 9th Circuit en banc decision on this issue:
1. The ruling on the registration provision is very important. Arizona can continue to use a form for voter registration which requires proof of citizenship. But as to registering in federal elections, Arizona must accept the “federal form” (promulgated by the EAC) which does not require proof of citizenship. Congress has the power to make Arizona accept this form under the Elections Clause of the Constitution. This means that voter registration drives in Arizona (which may be key to Democrats’ plans for the November election) may use the federal form. (Barring, of course, any further action in this case in the Supreme Court.)
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog notes an interesting procedural twist about the case:
The grant of review was a bit of a surprise, since the Court on the last day of last Term had denied a stay application, over the lone dissent of Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. That denial assured that the citizenship mandate would not be imposed for the November 6 election, but it did not settle whether the Court would grant review. That is what happened with the order Monday morning. The case probably will be argued in February, with a decision by the end of the Term in late June.
This is the only election law case now currently on the Supreme Court docket, but more are probably coming: Shelby County (on the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act); Texas’s appeal of the denial of preclearance in its voter i.d. and redistricting cases; cases challenging corporate contributions to candidates and aggregate limits on campaign contributions; and one or two cases involving current election disputes out of Ohio. Stay tuned.