23 States Go To The Supreme Court Over A Critical 2024 Election Ruling

✪ The Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to stop states from implementing election safeguards against fraud. It’s almost as if they want election fraud to happen…

▶️ CLICK HERE TO READ

bbbb

epublican Attorney Generals Kris Kobach of Kansas and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia filed an amicus brief joined by 22 states asking the Supreme Court to halt a lower court ruling that would force Arizona to allow people to register to vote without having to prove their U.S. citizenship.

The brief, which was made public on Monday, supports the Republican National Committee‘s emergency petition in response to an appeals court decision that blocked Arizona from enforcing its law, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to participate in federal elections by mail or in person.

Election integrity has always been a hot topic, but it’s getting even hotter as Arizona finds itself at the center of this legal battle that could have far reaching nationwide implications. A ruling which could protect elections for generations to come.

Isn’t it just common sense to ensure national election integrity? According to Republican Attorney Generals Kris Kobach of Kansas and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, it’s not just common sense—it’s a matter of preserving democracy. They, along with 22 other states, have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to halt a lower court ruling that would allow people to register to vote in Arizona without proving their citizenship.

“It’s about safeguarding the integrity of our elections — the heart of our democratic process,” Morrisey said in a statement.

“It’s really very simple: you should not be allowed to vote if you’re not a United States citizen, and having proof of your citizenship is vital in making sure we conduct free, safe and lawful elections.”

The RNC is seeking a ruling over the swing-state dispute by Thursday, the deadline to resolve the litigation before ballots are printed. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, claimed rampant voter fraud in 2020 led to his loss to then-candidate Joe Biden in Arizona by nearly 11,000 votes, prompting months long efforts to audit the results.

Although Arizona’s challenged law from 2022 is not in effect pending any action from the Supreme Court, its enactment would require the state to reject the vote of anyone who registers using a state form without showing proof of citizenship before casting an initial ballot.

Last month, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit halted a district court ruling that blocked the law from taking effect. But a different panel revised the earlier ruling and is now allowing Arizonans to register to vote in federal races without the proof of citizenship requirement.

But, of course, not everyone sees it that way. Civil rights groups and the Biden Justice Department argue that the law could disenfranchise thousands of voters who have already registered using a federal form. They claim that this requirement is unnecessary and burdensome, potentially blocking legitimate voters from exercising their rights.

The stakes are high, especially in a swing state like Arizona, where former President Donald Trump claimed voter fraud cost him the 2020 election. While those claims were strongly refuted by the left, the controversy has left a lasting impact. There are ongoing debates about election security and the balance between preventing fraud and ensuring voter access.

The question pending before the justices invokes the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that held the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 preempts Arizona from requiring citizenship proof for voter registrants applying using a federal form.

The legal battle now hinges on whether the Supreme Court will uphold Arizona’s law or side with the 9th Circuit’s ruling. The justices are being asked to consider whether their 2013 decision, which struck down a similar Arizona law, should be revisited. Back then, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the National Voter Registration Act preempted Arizona’s requirement for proof of citizenship, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. Today, Thomas and Alito are part of the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, and their earlier dissent might now carry more weight.

At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the act “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.”

One portion of the latest brief led by Kansas and West Virginia tells the Supreme Court that their 2013 decision should not be read to “limit States’ ability to treat voter registration as a voting qualification.”

The Republican attorneys general wrote that “there is much reason for the Court to either overrule or cabin that decision, which ‘brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States and produces truly strange results,’” quoting part of Alito’s dissent from the 2013 decision.

Additionally, the brief argues that granting the application to uphold Arizona’s 2022 law does not require overruling the 2013 Supreme Court decision, although the conservative states contend the justices “should certainly do so at some point.”

The petition has been submitted to liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who handles matters from the 9th Circuit. Justices could act as early as this week over the dispute.✪

lll