Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on two questions about the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal law that governs voter registration and list maintenance. After lower courts ruled against Arizona’s voting restrictions, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court will consider whether:

• Arizona can require voter-registration applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, like a passport, when using the state’s registration form.
• The NVRA’s “quiet period” bars states from systematically removing voters identified as noncitizens within 90 days of a federal election.

The outcome will have significant implications for election administration nationwide. Public Rights Project and a bipartisan coalition of 20 current and former election officials filed an amicus brief explaining the practical consequences. The coalition represents 17 million voters across 32 local jurisdictions and includes officials from small and large jurisdictions that will be directly affected by the court’s ruling.

The brief explains:

• Late-cycle voter removals place a significant burden on election officials and jeopardize eligible voters because there is little time to correct erroneous removals before the election. The “quiet period” prohibits all systematic voter-removal programs, including those aimed at alleged noncitizenship. 
• State registration forms serve purposes beyond verifying eligibility. Even setting aside any citizenship documentation requirements, state-specific forms help election officials meet voters’ accessibility and language needs, communicate state requirements, and streamline registration and election administration.
• Election officials can still maintain individual registration records during the 90-day window. The NVRA allows them to correct errors in an individual record, respond to a voter’s own request for removal, and remove a person whose eligibility changed. 

Why it matters

The RNC and Arizona lawmakers’ reading of the law undermines Congress’s purpose in creating the quiet period: balancing ensuring accurate voter rolls with protecting eligible voters’ rights. Errors in a systematic purge could disenfranchise eligible citizens and disrupt an election, so the law serves effective election administration by protecting both interests.

We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which was consistent with the decisions of other appeals courts.

The brief was filed in collaboration with Democracy Defenders Fund and Professor Justin Levitt at Loyola Law School.

Read the amicus brief.