A couple weeks ago, someone asked me, “Did the Arizona Supreme Court really add 98,000 illegal immigrants to the voter rolls?”
I thought it was a joke, until others raised the same question. I asked where they had heard it, and the answers were varied but concerning: Glenn Beck, Newsmax, an Elon Musk tweet.
Sure enough, when I Googled the Court, I found several headlines implying we had done just that. Newsweek’s headline was typical: “Arizona Court Says Nearly 100K People With Unconfirmed Citizenship Can Vote.”
That alarmed (unnecessarily, as it turns out) a lot of people. They probably would have been less worried, even relieved, if the headline writers instead had said: “AZ Court Declines to Remove Nearly 100K Voters Over Bureaucratic Computer Glitch.”
That’s exactly what happened, though it takes a bit to explain.
In 1996, Arizona became the first state to require proof of citizenship to vote. A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling said we could not prevent voting in federal elections, only state. So voters who meet federal but not state requirements receive a federal-only ballot.
The Arizona law provided that anyone who had an Arizona driver license by 2005 was deemed to have citizenship. They would only have to prove it if they moved counties or requested a duplicate. The Motor Vehicle Division was supposed to identify and notify them.
Turns out that for drivers who received licenses in October 1996 or before, they never did.
The error was discovered recently, and Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer concluded the voters—numbering 98,000 or more—should have to prove their citizenship in order to vote in state elections.
Most in the affected group had voted for decades. There was no assertion that any of them were illegal immigrants. Indeed, if you first obtained an Arizona license before October 1996, you may have been among them.
Imagine the chaos that would have ensued—much less allegations of a stolen election—if residents who had voted for decades tried to vote and were turned away because they hadn’t proved their citizenship and no one had ever asked them to do so.
Fortunately, that won’t happen. My Court ruled, unanimously, that we do not have authority to remove 98,000 voters from the rolls. It was the only election case I can remember where the American Civil Liberties Union and the Arizona Republican Party were on the same side, urging us to not disenfranchise voters.
County Recorders can still go after individual voters they believe are not citizens. But long-time voters will not experience a November surprise.
My colleague Justice Kathryn King and I are on your election ballot for judicial retention this year. The misinformation spread by the self-described “progressive” groups opposing us is bad enough. Even worse is when a good decision that was urged by groups spanning the philosophical spectrum is mischaracterized.
Glenn Beck was kind enough to invite me onto his show to correct the record. I’m still working on Elon Musk, who is a bit difficult to get ahold of. But I greatly appreciate this opportunity to explain the decision—and even more, the honor to serve on our state’s highest court.
Clint Bolick is a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. You can find his opinions at azjustice44.com.
