PHOENIX — An attempt by an Arizona nonprofit to compel county recorders to verify the citizenship of over 40,000 voters just weeks before an election was denied by a federal judge. The ruling stated that the Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona did not demonstrate standing, as they failed to show how they were directly harmed by the alleged lack of citizenship checks in federal-only voter registrations.
Judge Krissa Lanham, in her 22-page decision, emphasized that even if such voters were found to be non-citizens, the claim that this would dilute legitimate votes was insufficient to justify the lawsuit’s demands. This was echoed in the case of Yvonne Cahill, a naturalized citizen and co-plaintiff, whose concerns about vote dilution were also dismissed.
Central to the foundation’s grievance is Arizona’s dual voter registration system, which segregates voters into those who have provided proof of citizenship and can participate in all state and federal elections, and those who have not but can still vote in federal elections under the National Voter Registration Act. This act allows voters to register for federal elections by signing an affidavit affirming their citizenship under penalty of perjury.
The timing of the lawsuit, filed just 24 days before early voting commenced, was particularly criticized by Lanham. The judge pointed out the improbability of rectifying the alleged issues without disrupting the ongoing electoral process. The plaintiffs’ delayed action until the election cycle was already underway undermined their claims of irreparable harm, she noted.
Lanham also highlighted the logistical and legal challenges of enforcing such a verification process in the midst of an election season. She referred to a state law that prohibits significant changes to voter rolls within 90 days of an election, which further complicates the plaintiffs’ demands.
Merissa Hamilton, representing Strong Communities, indicated that their legal team is currently reviewing the court’s decision. The lawsuit had initially demanded that counties not only check the citizenship of registered federal-only voters but also report those who could not provide proof of citizenship to the Attorney General of Arizona, Kris Mayes.
Opponents of the lawsuit argue that there is little evidence to suggest that a significant number of non-citizens are registered or voting. A survey cited by the plaintiffs suggested that a small percentage of non-citizens might be registered to vote. However, Aaron Thacker, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, stressed the reliability of sworn affidavits in the voter registration process, noting that these mostly involve groups less likely to have immediate proof of citizenship, such as Native Americans, college students, and senior citizens.
Local officials, including Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly, argue that real-world evidence shows non-citizen registration to be a non-issue, with existing safeguards effectively preventing ineligible voting. The foundation’s sweeping demands were thus seen as lacking a factual basis, aiming to instigate a broad and disruptive investigation based on speculative harms.
In conclusion, the challenges of managing a smooth electoral process, combined with strict legal constraints and the absence of concrete evidence presented by the plaintiffs, led to the dismissal of the lawsuit. The ruling underscores the complexities involved in balancing election integrity with the practicalities of election administration, especially when changes are proposed so close to election dates.