Background

Following the 2020 election, Arizona passed a new voter registration law that, in part, required voters to produce documentary proof of citizenship when registering on Arizona’s state-specific voter registration form. While the NVRA permits states to develop their own voter registration forms, those forms must include all the fields on the federal form and only those additional fields that are “necessary.” The federal voter registration form does not require documentary proof of citizenship. 

Mi Familia Vota challenged Arizona’s law, arguing that it violated the NVRA and an existing consent decree. Amicus takes issue only with the NVRA component of this question presented. Specifically, amicus contends that, given the case’s unusual procedural history, the lower courts never considered whether determining that a specific state-form field is “necessary” under the NVRA requires a fact-specific inquiry into the circumstances of a State’s particular registration system (e.g., the strength of its databases, the number of verified instances of noncitizen voting, etc.). Accordingly, amicus urged the Court to dismiss the writ here as improvidently granted insofar as it concerns the NVRA. In the alternative, amicus argues that if the Court determines that further fact-finding is needed to determine whether Arizona’s requirement is permissible under the NVRA, it should vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.