The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated on the contentious Arizona election laws during a hearing on Tuesday. The debate involves a law that demands citizenship proof for state voter registration and another that restricts voters who used a federal-only form from presidential voting. Despite the points raised, both sides, as well as the judges, acknowledged the futility of expecting a decision to impact the upcoming election.
Represented by attorney Kory Langhofer, the GOP leadership expressed time constraints in achieving a ruling prior to the election. "The Supreme Court issued its stay the day that ballots printed," Langhofer explained, pointing out that rushing to a verdict for this election cycle was a moot point, indirectly reinforcing the law's current influence.
In September, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling on the Arizona laws. It allowed the requirement for proof of citizenship for voters using the state forms but halted the implication that federal form registrants couldn't vote in presidential elections. This partial injunction by the high court set the tone for the subsequent discussions at the Ninth Circuit.
Advocates for affected voters raised concerns over unequal treatment and potential discrimination. Attorney Danielle Lang, addressing the somewhat discordant application of these laws, stated, "They are not going to be treated the same way because of the way that they registered," directly confronting the idea that these laws applied equitably across the board. Attorney Jonathan Backer, representing the United States, refuted the necessity of certain inquiries made during the voter registration process as irrelevant to determining voter qualifications. "Election official after election official said birthplace is not used to determine voter qualifications in Arizona," Backer told AZPM News.
During the hearing, the case took a deeper turn into the motives behind the laws, questioning the specter of discrimination. Attorney Ernest Herrera, representing Promise Arizona, pointed to a background of "baseless accusations" around noncitizen voting to suggest a discriminatory intent in the creation of the laws. According to an instance reported by Capitol Media Services, Herrera recalled an exchange that further hinted at such intentions, although the involved parties have denied the accusation.
The court's conversation underscores an ongoing national debate on voter access and election integrity—one that is, as of now, unresolved by the Ninth Circuit. As the legal process unfolds, the impact on Arizona's electorate looms, regardless of the various interpretations and intentions ascribed to these laws.
