The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a law requiring Arizona voters to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote to go into effect, overturning an Appeals Court decision to keep the law blocked given the proximity to the election. In an order Thursday, the justices granted in part and denied in part an emergency application from the legislative leaders and the Republican National Committee, allowing the state voter registration citizenship provision to go into effect but keeping a block on another provision barring those who failed to provide evidence of citizenship from voting in the presidential election or by mail. The latest ruling from the high court follows lengthy litigation in federal court over the enactment of two 2022 election laws. After the district court blocked the two provisions at hand for violations of the National Voter Registration Act and a 2018 consent decree, the legislative leaders filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the enforcement of the court’s injunction. One Ninth Circuit panel agreed to stay parts of the district court’s order, clearing the way for the two laws to go into effect, but after reconsideration, a second Ninth Circuit panel reversed the decision, citing the Purcell principle, which guides the courts against changing election law on the eve of an election. Petersen, Toma and the RNC then took the issue to the Supreme Court, where justices ordered a stay on the district court’s order only as it pertains to the law requiring proof of citizenship to register with the state voter registration form. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted the emergency application in full and Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson would deny the application entirely, according to the order. The order noted the injunction would remain in place until either the disposition of appeals in the Ninth Circuit and the disposition of a writ of certiorari, if any of the parties decide to seek additional final review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Both Petersen and Toma said they would continue to litigate the issue. “Our legal battle is far from over,” Petersen said. Toma said in a statement, “I look forward to continuing this litigation in the 9th Circuit to vindicate all of Arizona’s common sense voting laws, and eventually bringing this case before the Supreme Court for a full merits review.” Toma called the ruling a “step in the right direction to require proof of citizenship in all our elections.” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley similarly called the decision a “major victory for election integrity.” Fontes, though, expressed concern about potential voter confusion in a statement. “My concern is that changes to the process should not occur this close to an election” he said. “We respect the Court’s decision and will implement these changes while continuing to protect voter access and make voting a simple process.” 

A ballot measure creating open primaries will be on the ballot, granted it survives an additional review of signatures as ordered by the Arizona Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the justices found the Make Elections Fair Act does not violate the separate amendment rule as the “provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law” even if the changes do impact more than one section of an article of the Arizona Constitution. The court further found the act did not violate the separate amendment rule either in including an exemption from the revenue source requirement and finding the opposite would “effectively require any initiative be presented in two bites—one for the substance of the Act, and one to address the Revenue Source Rule.” Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote, “Such a requirement would place too great a burden on the initiative process. Although a revenue source consequence could conceivably stray so far from the subject of an initiative as to be untenable under the Separate Amendment Rule, it does not do so in this case. Here, the exemption from the Revenue Source Rule serves the common purpose of reforming elections—a putative solution relating to a complex matter— ‘while guarding against the passage of a combination of proposals, unrelated to a common principle or purpose, that proponents combine only to garner support from otherwise distinct groups of voters.’” The ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court affirms a prior ruling from the lower court and directs the Secretary of State to include the Make Elections Fair Act on the ballot, “absent any further orders to the contrary.” In addition to a separate amendment challenge, the act also faced a signature challenge. Maricopa Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz rejected the signature challenge, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish enough invalid signatures to prevent the measure from the ballot. But on Wednesday, the state supreme court reversed the trial court’s decision to omit admission of exhibits allegedly showing duplicate signatures and remanded the issue, directing Moskowitz to examine the exhibits, “determine whether the exhibits prove any duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence,” and proceed accordingly.