Arizona Supreme Court Allows Nearly 98,000 Voters to Participate in Upcoming Elections
In a landmark ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court has determined that close to 98,000 voters, whose citizenship statuses were previously uncertain due to a database error, will be allowed to cast their votes in state and local elections. This unanimous decision has the potential to significantly impact important ballot initiatives and closely contested legislative races.
Database Error Sparks Controversy
The ruling follows the discovery of a twenty-year-old glitch in the state’s voter registration database. This error erroneously classified these voters as qualified for full ballot access even though their citizenship documentation had not been validated. Significantly, all affected voters were already permitted to vote in federal elections, including for the presidency and congressional positions, regardless of the outcome of the court’s decision.
Disagreement Among Officials
The Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Stephen Richer, the Republican recorder for Maricopa County, had contrasting views on the issue. Richer had called on the court to make a ruling, arguing that Fontes was disregarding state law by instructing county officials to allow the affected voters unrestricted access to the ballot. Fontes countered that denying these voters access to the full ballot would raise serious equal protection and due process concerns.
Court’s Rationale
The Arizona Supreme Court, which has a Republican majority, sided with Fontes, asserting that local electoral officials do not have the power to alter the statuses of these voters who registered and affirmed their citizenship status years ago. The court emphasized that the voters should not be penalized for a government error, especially with the general election looming on November 5.
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer expressed the court’s sentiment, stating, “We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests.”
Demographics of Affected Voters
Most of the nearly 98,000 impacted voters are longstanding Arizona residents, predominantly from Maricopa County—the home of Phoenix. They are primarily individuals aged between 45 to 60. Political registration among these voters is diverse, with approximately 37% registered as Republicans, 27% as Democrats, and the rest identified as independents or associated with minor parties.
Arizona’s Unique Voting Requirements
Arizona stands out for its requirement that voters demonstrate their citizenship to participate in non-federal elections. Voters can verify their citizenship by providing a driver’s license or tribal ID number, or by submitting a copy of their birth certificate, passport, or naturalization documents. The law considers driver’s licenses issued post-October 1996 as valid proof of citizenship, but the database error affected those who obtained licenses prior to that date, marking these voters as being eligible for a full ballot.
Political Implications of the Ruling
The number of eligible votes could play a critical role in close contests for a state legislature where Republicans currently have a narrow lead. This ruling also arrives as voters prepare to weigh in on pivotal issues, including a potential constitutional right pertaining to abortion rights and a controversial state law targeting noncitizens who enter Arizona.
Bipartisan Support for Ruling
Even amidst their differences, both Richer and Fontes hailed the court’s decision as a triumph for electoral integrity. Richer expressed relief on social media, while Fontes labeled the ruling as a “significant victory” for the voters whose rights were in question. He also indicated that election officials would reach out to those affected after the elections to facilitate updates to their citizenship proofs.
Affected Voter’s Reaction
Voter John Groseclose, who faced concerns regarding his citizenship status, shared his relief in light of the ruling. Groseclose noted his frustrations with the complications that emerged from the lengthy process of proving his eligibility, which included an extended wait at a motor vehicle office and confusion regarding how to update his voter registration.
