Press Releases

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Arizona v. ITCA. The Court was presented with the issue of whether, under the "National Voter Registration Act of 1993" (NVRA), states can demand additional requirements to the federal uniform voter registration form.  Since Arizona’s Proposition 200 ballot initiative was approved in November 2004, the state has rejected tens-of-thousands of registrants for  lacking documentation specified by the state to prove citizenship, on the grounds that affirmation of U.S. citizenship required by the NVRA is insufficient.  In the first three years after implementation, more than 30,000 eligible voters were rejected, including servicemen and women, because they lacked the approved additional documentation, which does not include military I.D.’s, to prove citizenship. Three lower courts have held that Arizona’s law conflicts with the NVRA, and that the federal law preempts the state law. Following the oral arguments, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released the following statement:

“Second only to the "Voting Rights Act of 1965", the National Voter Registration Act is a legislative hallmark that provides greater access to the ballot for eligible voters.

“Prior to the law’s enactment in 1993, over forty percent of eligible voters in America faced significant barriers to voter registration because of additional state-mandated voter registration requirements. Recognizing these barriers, Congress acted under its constitutional authority and established uniform procedures that increased the number of citizens eligible to register to vote in federal elections.

“The purpose of the NVRA and Arizona’s additional requirements are simply incompatible.  Since 2004, Arizona’s law mandated that county recorders ‘shall reject any application for registration’ that was not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of citizenship.  Even if an applicant is eligible to vote, Arizona’s law would reject that voter’s application unless they overcame the state’s additional burdens of proving citizenship.

“The legislative history is clear: Congress passed the NVRA to override practices that erect barriers to the franchise. The case presented before the Court today presented a clear case for preemption, and I anticipate that the Court will continue to affirm Congress’s authority to establish rules for voter registration in federal elections.”

###