Court Allows Nearly 98,000 Arizonans Without Confirmed Citizenship to Vote

In a landmark decision, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled that nearly 98,000 voters whose citizenship documents were not verified can participate in local and state elections. This ruling could have a significant impact on various ballot measures and tightly contested legislative races.

The court reached this conclusion after discovering a database error that had erroneously categorized these voters as having full ballot rights for the past two decades. While these voters were already permitted to cast ballots in federal elections, including presidential and congressional races, the court’s ruling clarified their eligibility for state and local contests.

Disagreements surfaced between Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer regarding the status of these voters. Richer requested the high court’s input, arguing that Fontes had overlooked state law by instructing county officials to allow the affected voters to cast full ballots.

Fontes countered that denying these voters access to the complete ballot could raise serious issues related to equal protection and due process.

The Arizona Supreme Court, which has a Republican majority, sided with Fontes. The court indicated that county officials lacked the authority to alter these voters’ statuses since they had registered long ago and had confirmed their citizenship under penalty of law. Furthermore, the justices emphasized that the voters should not be penalized for the state’s database error, especially with the general election approaching on November 5.

“We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer stated in the ruling.

Of the nearly 98,000 affected individuals, a significant number reside in Maricopa County, the most populous region in the state, which includes Phoenix. Most of these voters are long-term residents, aged between 45 and 60 years. Approximately 37% of them are registered Republicans, 27% are registered Democrats, while the remainder consists of independents or members of minor parties.

Arizona is distinctive in requiring voters to prove their citizenship for state and local elections. Citizens can validate their citizenship by providing a driver’s license or tribal identification number, or by submitting a copy of a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization documentation.

Drivers’ licenses issued after October 1996 are recognized as valid proof of citizenship in Arizona. However, a coding error in the state’s system mistakenly classified nearly 98,000 voters who acquired licenses prior to 1996 as eligible for full ballots, which constitutes approximately 2.5% of all registered voters in the state.

State officials have confirmed that this error between the voter registration database and the Motor Vehicle Division has been rectified.

The potential for nearly 98,000 votes to influence key races adds importance to the upcoming election. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in both chambers of the Arizona Legislature, underscoring the stakes involved.

In addition to legislative races, voters are set to decide on critical issues, including the constitutional right to abortion and a controversial law aimed at criminalizing noncitizens who enter Arizona through unauthorized locations along the Mexico border.

Despite their earlier disagreements, both Richer and Fontes expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling. “Thank God,” Richer commented on his social media account. He highlighted that maintaining the existing status for voters would ease administrative burdens.

Fontes termed the ruling a “significant victory for those whose fundamental right to vote was under scrutiny,” and he announced that election officials would reach out to voters needing to update their proof of citizenship after the election concludes.

Among those relieved by the ruling was John Groseclose, a voter whose citizenship had been questioned. He expressed gratitude that he would not have to spend additional time resolving the registration issue stemming from the decade-old error.

This week, Groseclose recounted waiting for over an hour and a half at a motor vehicle office in Tempe, only to find that the staff member was unaware of the problem and could not assist him with updating his registration, even though he provided official documentation like his birth certificate and new passport.

“I’m glad that none of us are going to be disenfranchised over an error generated by the MVD 20 some-odd years ago,” Groseclose told reporters.