An Arizona judge has made a decision that leaves over 42,000 registered voters in a legal limbo just weeks before the federal elections, raising questions about the integrity of the electoral process.
At a Glance
- An Arizona judge rejected requests for citizenship verification of 42,000 voters registered only for federal elections.
- The ruling followed a lawsuit by conservative groups citing a 2022 statute for verifying voter credentials.
- Judge Krissa Lanham deemed the checks impractical so close to the election date.
- The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling, represented by America First Legal.
Judicial Ruling and Legal Challenge
A recent ruling from an Arizona judge has halted efforts to verify the citizenship of approximately 42,000 voters registered solely for federal elections. The conservative group Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and an Arizona voter initiated the lawsuit, aiming to enforce a 2022 statute requiring citizenship verification through government databases. However, citing timing issues and the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing, the judge dismissed the request for immediate action.
Despite Arizona’s regulations mandating proof of citizenship for voting in local and state elections, the state permits individuals to participate in federal elections by affirming their citizenship status without requiring documented evidence. This legal distinction was at the heart of the recent court battle.
A judge has rejected a request to require Arizona’s 15 counties to verify the citizenship of some 42,000 voters registered only to vote in federal elections in the presidential battleground state. https://t.co/USQKJXYuDn
— FOX 10 Phoenix (@FOX10Phoenix) October 15, 2024
Timing and Resources
U.S. District Judge Krissa Lanham, appointed by President Biden, declined to require Arizona counties to allocate resources for citizenship checks so shortly before the election. Her decision underlined the practical constraints counties face this close to the election day. The ruling was not just a matter of feasibility but also focused on the technicalities of the plaintiffs’ request, which came too late in the electoral timeline.
“They (the plaintiffs) have not made a clearcut showing of harm, nor that the action they request is feasible in the midst of a general election,” Lanham commented on the ruling.
Meanwhile, federal law restricts systematic voter-list purges within 90 days of an election. The plaintiffs sought only communication with federal bodies, rather than large-scale voter list adjustments at this stage.
Continuing Legal Developments
Following the decision, America First Legal, under the leadership of Stephen Miller, former Trump adviser, plans to appeal the ruling. Their statement emphasized the necessity of addressing concerns about noncitizens potentially being included in the Arizona voter rolls illegally. The appeal underlines ongoing concerns surrounding voter eligibility and the processes to ensure electoral integrity in the battleground state of Arizona.
America First Legal stated their commitment to “demand potential illegal aliens and noncitizens are lawfully removed from the Arizona voter rolls.”
The decision leaves the plaintiffs with the option to pursue an appeal as they seek to uphold the electoral process’s foundational principle: the inclusion of only eligible citizens in the voting rolls. As the legal battle continues, it underscores the complexity and significance of election laws and their enforcement in a rapidly approaching election season.
Sources:
- Arizona counties won’t be forced to do citizenship checks before the election, a judge rules
- Arizona Counties Won’t Be Forced to Do Citizenship Checks Before the Election, a Judge Rules
