Election experts are warning the Supreme Court that affirming a lower court's ruling could mean that noncitizens, minors or factitious people listed on state voter rolls could be impossible to remove.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in RNC v. Mi Familia Vote in December and will determine whether a pair of Arizona's state laws that remove the registrations of noncitizen voters from voter rolls within 90 days of an election and require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote are in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
"Citizenship is a qualification for voting. If states are going to enforce that requirement, they have to be able to verify it," Justin Riemer, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
CLINTON-APPOINTED JUDGE TRIGGERS APPEAL AFTER BLOCKING KEY VOTER CITIZENSHIP LAW
"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."
In an amicus brief filed Thursday, attorneys from Center for Election Confidence, Inc.; Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, Inc.; and Honest Elections Project, argued the 9th Circuit Court's ruling that the Arizona laws are an act of "voter suppression" is "absurd" and raises serious threats to state rights.
The brief argued that Congress may regulate the mechanics of federal elections, but states have the constitutional authority to set and enforce voter qualifications, a power they argued becomes meaningless if states cannot obtain documentation needed to verify citizenship or remove people who were never eligible to register.
"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," the brief stated.
The amicus brief pushed back on the 9th Circuit's conclusion that Arizona cannot conduct a systematic program to remove noncitizens from voter rolls during the NVRA's 90-day pre-election period. The federal law generally requires states to complete systematic voter-removal programs at least 90 days before a federal election, while allowing removals during that window for a voter's request, death, criminal conviction or mental incapacity.
DEMOCRAT NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR SAYS THOUSANDS OF NONCITIZENS DISCOVERED ON VOTER ROLLS, PURGED
The groups argued that noncitizenship is not among those listed grounds because it concerns someone who was never eligible to register in the first place. They said the restriction is meant to protect eligible voters from erroneous last-minute removals, not to shield people who were never eligible to register.
"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 said.
"Not just that, but these States could never remove these noncitizens who were never eligible to vote."
The brief pointed to reported registration errors in New Jersey, Illinois and Oregon as examples of why states need a mechanism to correct allegedly improper registrations. It argues that an unlawful ballot cannot be undone once cast and counted.
DHS APPROVES PLAN TO VERIFY VOTER CITIZENSHIP, MONITOR MAIL BALLOTS AS TRUMP PUSH INTENSIFIES
"American elections are for American citizens only. Period," Lisa Dixon, executive director of the Center for Election Confidence, said in a statement. "We should all support Arizona ensuring noncitizens can't register to vote and removing any non-citizens who end up on the voter lists."
The amici also argued that the 9th Circuit misread NVRA provisions governing what information is "necessary" for state election officials to assess a voter's eligibility, and whether a state registration form is "equivalent" to the federal form.
The brief argued that the 9th Circuit wrongly concluded a voter's citizenship attestation on a registration form is sufficient proof of eligibility and improperly interpreted an "equivalent" state form to mean one that is virtually identical to the federal form.
"Once again, far-left activists are using the courts to twist federal law into a straitjacket that prevents states from securing their elections," Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement to Fox News.
"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."
