In an important decision issued on Thursday, Senior U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton upheld the essence of Arizona’s new voting legislation. The court affirmed the state’s authority to ensure that only U.S. citizens participate in its elections. The ruling is a win for advocates for election integrity and is a setback for radical leftists, Democrats, and the Biden administration. The case challenging the law was brought by several plaintiffs including the Hispanic voting rights organization “Mi Familia Vota.”
Judge Bolton’s decision underscores Arizona’s legitimate interest in preventing non-citizens from voting and bolstering public confidence in its electoral processes. She stated, “Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concludes that Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweigh the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide (documentary proof of citizenship).”
The ruling is particularly relevant as Arizona has been at the center of election-related disputes, especially after the close presidential elections in 2016 and 2020. As one of the hotbeds of controversy regarding deep suspicions about the integrity of the 2020 and 2022 elections, the Grand Canyon State is certain to be a focal point of attention this November.
— Trumpusa1 (@Trumpusa1A1) March 1, 2024
The Arizona law, H.B. 2492, mandates that voters must provide proof of U.S. citizenship to register, reinforcing measures already in place since 2005. This requirement is crucial for maintaining the sanctity of the electoral system by ensuring that only eligible voters can cast ballots.
The opposition, led by entities like the Elias Law Group, which the Biden administration backs, argued that these measures would disenfranchise lawful citizens. However, their claims did not stand in court. The judge stated, “Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show that the Voting Laws’ remaining citizenship investigation procedures, documentary proof of citizenship requirements, and registration cancellation procedures violate the National Voter Registration Act or the Voting Rights Act.”
Despite the plaintiffs’ arguments that the law responded to unfounded allegations of non-citizen voting, the court found no discriminatory purpose behind enacting the voting laws. Considering the history of legal challenges and political rhetoric surrounding Arizona’s election laws, this point is critical.
It’s important to note that while most of the law was upheld, a requirement for voters to list their place of birth on registration forms was struck down. Judge Bolton rightly pointed out that an individual’s place of birth does not definitively determine citizenship status, thereby preventing potential discrimination against naturalized U.S. citizens.
Illegal immigration has been a pressing issue under the Biden administration, with significant increases in migrant encounters at the southern border. This context makes Arizona’s stance on election integrity even more pertinent, as the state strives to ensure its elections are fair, secure, and free from illegal participation.
Here is a local report from the time the law was enacted last year:
