The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) filed an amicus brief in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017) and Petersen v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1019) (both of which stem from the same proceeding below) with Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) and the Honest Elections Project, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the 9th Circuit’s ruling that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempts Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship for absentee voting and the investigation and removal of noncitizens from its voter rolls.

On the issue of Arizona requiring citizenship documentation for absentee voting, the brief asserts that “the NVRA does not expressly preempt Arizona’s mail-in rule” because “all that the NVRA expressly preempts are state laws that do not meet the federal floor for registration in the NVRA.” The brief argues that the 9th Circuit “egregiously erred by taking pieces of the NVRA out of context and invoking a singular, misconstrued legislative purpose to override Arizona’s mail-in ballot limits.”

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the NVRA to preempt Arizona’s absentee voting law “would preempt not only a commonplace mail-in voting rule like this one, but nearly every law that regulates elections.” As such, “[t]he Ninth Circuit’s broad preemption approach would effectuate a revolution in election law” by “seemingly doom[ing] all the[ ] longstanding state laws that require . . . additional information and excuses to vote absentee.” 

The brief next raises the issue of Arizona’s investigation and removal of noncitizens on its voter rolls. Here, the brief argues that the 9th Circuit again “egregiously erred in invalidating Arizona’s inspections of its voter roll. . . by transforming the NVRA into ‘a congressional ban on removing foreign citizens for voting in American elections.’”

Specifically, the brief further argues that accepting the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the NVRA “would raise serious constitutional doubts about its validity [because] ‘the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them.’”

In addition, “States and American citizens are grievously harmed when a noncitizen (or minor or other person not qualified to vote) votes” whereas “any hypothetical citizen removed can generally remedy any harm by casting a provisional ballot and providing proof of citizenship.” Thus, “[t]he integrity of our self-government requires” review and reversal of the 9th Circuit’s expansive interpretation of the NVRA as prohibiting Arizona’s inspections of its voter rolls for registrations by non-citizens.

CEC, RITE, and the Honest Elections Project urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and to reverse.

The Center for Election Confidence thanks Christopher E. Mills of Spero Law LLC for his representation in this matter—as well as RITE and the Honest Elections Project for their collaboration with CEC.