The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments this December in RNC v. Mi Familia Vote, a case challenging two Arizona state laws that require proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and allow for the removal of noncitizens from voter rolls within 90 days of an election. The central legal question is whether these state measures violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The case arises from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked the Arizona laws, characterizing them as acts of "voter suppression." Election integrity groups, including the Center for Election Confidence, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and the Honest Elections Project, filed an amicus brief on Thursday warning that affirming the lower court's decision could lead to what they termed "absurd" consequences, such as the permanent inability to remove noncitizens, minors, or fictitious entities from state voter rolls.

What the Left Is Saying

While the provided source material primarily features arguments from conservative election integrity groups, the legal framework cited by the Ninth Circuit relies on the National Voter Registration Act's provisions regarding systematic voter removal. The lower court's ruling, which the Supreme Court is reviewing, concluded that Arizona's laws constitute voter suppression. The amici brief notes that the Ninth Circuit determined that the NVRA's 90-day pre-election period generally prohibits systematic removal programs, with specific exceptions only for a voter's request, death, criminal conviction, or mental incapacity.

The Ninth Circuit's position, as described in the brief, suggests that a voter's attestation of citizenship on a registration form is sufficient proof of eligibility and that a state registration form must be "equivalent" to the federal form, interpreted by the court as meaning virtually identical. This interpretation limits the state's ability to impose additional documentation requirements like proof of citizenship at the registration stage.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative election integrity advocates argue that the Ninth Circuit's ruling misinterprets federal law and undermines state authority. Justin Riemer, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, stated, "Citizenship is a qualification for voting. If states are going to enforce that requirement, they have to be able to verify it."

Riemer added, "And when officials find noncitizens on the voter rolls, they should be able to act before an election, not after. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree and reverse the Ninth Circuit's misguided ruling."

The amicus brief argues that while Congress may regulate the mechanics of federal elections, states retain the constitutional authority to set and enforce voter qualifications. The brief states, "Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications."

Lisa Dixon, executive director of the Center for Election Confidence, emphasized the importance of restricting voting to citizens, stating, "American elections are for American citizens only. Period. We should all support Arizona ensuring non-citizens can’t register to vote and removing any non-citizens who end up on the voter lists."

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, argued that the lower court's decision restricts state tools for election security. "Once again, far-left activists are using the courts to twist federal law into a straitjacket that prevents states from securing their elections," Snead said. "The Honest Elections Project urges the Supreme Court to side with Arizona and preserve the tools states need to ensure that elections are decided only by American citizens."

What the Numbers Show

The case centers on the interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day pre-election period. Under current federal law, states must complete systematic voter-removal programs at least 90 days before a federal election. However, the law allows for removals during this 90-day window for specific reasons: a voter's request, death, criminal conviction, or mental incapacity.

The amici brief highlights that non-citizenship is not listed among these exceptions. The brief argues that this omission implies non-citizenship concerns individuals who were never eligible to register in the first place, rather than eligible voters who should be protected from erroneous last-minute removals. The brief states, "If the Ninth Circuit is right that the 90-day limitation on programs prohibits removal on these bases — because the statute has listed exceptions — States could never remove improperly registered individuals who fall within these categories, no matter when the removal happens or whether it is after a systematic inquiry."

The brief further warns, "Not just that, but these States could never remove these noncitizens who were never eligible to vote." It cites reported registration errors in New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon as examples of why states need mechanisms to correct allegedly improper registrations, noting that an unlawful ballot cannot be undone once cast and counted.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court's decision in RNC v. Mi Familia Vote will determine the balance of power between federal election standards and state enforcement of voter qualifications. If the Court affirms the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Arizona will likely be prevented from enforcing its proof-of-citizenship requirement and its 90-day removal rule for noncitizens, potentially setting a precedent that restricts other states from similar measures.

Conversely, if the Court reverses the lower court's decision, it may validate states' rights to impose stricter verification requirements and conduct systematic purges of noncitizens closer to election days. The amici brief argues that a reversal is necessary to prevent "absurd" outcomes where states are legally barred from removing individuals who were never eligible to vote, such as minors or fictitious entities. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 2026.