(Washington, DC) – After a six year legal battle in a lawsuit brought by voting rights groups on behalf of numerous individuals and civil rights organizations, Arizona’s Proposition 200, which requires proof of citizenship for voter registration, was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today on the grounds that the law is in direct conflict with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Proposition 200 requires citizens to provide proof of citizenship in the form of a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers to apply to register to vote. The NVRA provides that all states must accept the federal voter registration form, which “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” Nine of the 11 Circuit judges agreed that Congress has a constitutional right to regulate federal elections, and therefore the NVRA supersedes Arizona’s state law.
“This is a major victory for voting rights in the state of Arizona,” says Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, which was a plaintiff in the case, Gonzales v. Arizona. “This law has a chilling effect on voter registration, making the process less accessible and less convenient for Americans. The court agrees that Proposition 200 is in conflict with federal law, and we applaud the decision.”
“Notably, the court also based its decision on the broad policy goal of the NVRA, which was to streamline the process of voter registration,” explains Estelle Rogers, legislative director for Project Vote. “When the NVRA created the federal form in 1993, it was designed as a simple post card to be as easy as possible to use. This intent would be severely compromised if additional documents were required to be submitted with it.”
“The court emphasized that the proof of citizenship of Proposition 200, if enforced, would be erecting the very kinds of obstacles to voter registration that the NVRA was designed to break down,” says Rogers.
“This decision is strong affirmation of Congress’s commitment, expressed in law, to remove unnecessary barriers to voting,” says Karl J. Sandstrom, Project Vote’s pro bono attorney and author of an amicus brief in the case.
The other requirement of Proposition 200 at issue in the case, that voters show certain kinds of identification documents upon voting, was upheld in today’s decision.
“Project Vote is proud to have participated in important case,” says Slater. “We extend our thanks and hearty congratulations to all of plaintiffs’ counsel, particularly Nina Perales, Jon Greenbaum, and Bob Kengle.”