Justin here. A 9th Circuit panel is out with 156 pages’ worth of opinion in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the latest in the battles revolving around Arizona’s laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote. There’s (obviously) quite a lot going on in an opinion this size, but it’s a pretty clear win for plaintiffs across the board, affirming most of the trial court’s May 2024 decision. To distill:
- Voters using the federal voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona). The panel here held that’s true for voters voting by mail and voters voting for President as well.
- Voters using the state voter registration form have a legal right, subject for the moment to a SCOTUS stay, to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s a consent decree in LULAC v. Reagan, which today’s panel held valid – but on this point the decision is still subject to a SCOTUS stay). If voters (using the state or federal forms) submit documentary proof or have their citizenship confirmed through a check of DMV systems, those voters have to be registered for state elections too.
- Voters using the state voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their residency even without additional documentary proof.
- Naturalized citizens can’t be singled out (distinct from natural-born citizens) for citizenship checks using the SAVE database, because such a screen would not be uniform.
- Arizona can’t conduct systematic list maintenance to remove records of alleged noncitizens within the NVRA’s “pencils-down period” 90 days before an election (but can conduct such maintenance outside of the 90-day period).
- Voters who provide documentary proof of their citizenship can’t be disenfranchised if they don’t check a box on the state form affirming their citizenship (this is due to the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, and full disclosure – I submitted an amicus brief on this point)
- Voters can’t be disenfranchised based on their birthplace or their failure to list a birthplace (also under the materiality provision, with the same amicus brief caveat)
And the court remanded for the district court to reconsider the issue of whether the proof-of-citizenship laws were passed with discriminatory intent.
UPDATE: Foolishly forgot the obvious tie-in: the opinion should make for an even more interesting discussion at Rick’s March 4 SDP conversation w/ Adrian Fontes, Walter Olson, and Nina Perales…