Arizona

Challenging Arbitrary Procedures For Investigating the Citizenship of Registered Voters

This case challenges provisions in two 2022 Arizona laws targeting naturalized citizens and making voter registration needlessly more difficult. Provisions in the laws directed election officials to investigate the citizenship status of registered voters based simply on any “reason to believe” they were not U.S. citizens.

Officials should not be empowered to act on their subjective suspicions and prejudices, and any procedure used to verify voter registration eligibility must apply equally to all eligible voters.

Plaintiffs: Poder Latinx, Chicanos Por La Causa, and Chicanos Por La Causa Action Fund

Defendants: Adrian Fontes, Arizona Secretary of State; Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General; plus Arizona’s 15 County Recorders

Case Status: The “reason to believe” provision was struck down in U.S. District Court, and that ruling was upheld on appeal to the Ninth Circuit in February 2025. Result: this provision is no longer operative.

Case Summary:

Two Laws Addressing a Nonexistent Problem

In 2022, the then-current governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, signed two pieces of legislation that made voter registration more complicated, unfairly and unequally targeting naturalized citizens who wish to register to vote or are already registered: one law was focused on requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, and the other was focused on investigating the citizenship of certain registering and registered voters. The stated reason for enacting these laws was to combat voter fraud, which multiple recent studies have repeatedly shown is nearly nonexistent.

These laws were seen by voting rights organizations, including Fair Elections Center, to most significantly affect Latino voters and other communities with a high proportion of naturalized voters, in keeping with Arizona’s history of aggressive disenfranchisement.

Challenging Blatantly Discriminatory Provisions

Eight lawsuits were brought by multiple organizations challenging various aspects of the laws and were later consolidated into a single case. In our suit, Fair Elections Center, representing the civic engagement and advocacy organizations Poder Latinx, Chicanos Por La Causa, and Chicanos Por La Causa targeted a specific provision within the laws that required election officials to subject registered voters to an unwarranted, discriminatory citizenship check whenever the officials had a “reason to believe” a voter is not a U.S. citizen.

This blatantly discriminatory provision required the application of different practices and procedures based on a county recorder’s subjective, biased view of voters’ citizenship status, which could be triggered by anything, including a person’s use of a language other than English, their race or ethnicity, the way they are dressed, or the wearing of religious symbols. Because the law lacked any further written criteria or definition of what constitutes a “reason to believe,” it would have been an open invitation for the exercise of subjective suspicions and prejudices.

County recorders were further empowered to potentially remove the voting rights of registered voters based on mandated checks made using the frequently unreliable and out-of-date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) SAVE database, which contains only information on naturalized and derived citizens and so cannot be used to verify citizenship of native-born U.S. citizens, therefore subjecting naturalized citizens to unequal citizenship verification procedures.

Significant Victories in Court

On February 29, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona struck down portions of the two laws. Citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, relying on the fact that SAVE does not include data on US-born citizens, the court found that county election officials could not initiate an extra citizenship check based on any “reason to believe” a voter was not a U.S. citizen.

The Republican National Committee and some Arizona legislators appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where, on February 25, 2025, a three-judge panel issued a unanimous 3-0 ruling that the “reason to believe” provision violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on using different standards, practices, and procedures in determining voters’ qualifications. The three-judge panel explained this was due to the provision’s directive that county officials verify citizenship using the SAVE database—which only contains data on a subset of eligible voters, i.e., naturalized and derived citizens. This was only the third time voting rights groups have won a case using that provision of the Civil Rights Act.

A majority of judges also agreed that the law violated the National Voter Registration Act prohibition on non-uniform and discriminatory voter list maintenance practices.

Case Timeline:

February 29, 2024: We won our portion of the suit, as the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona struck down the “reason to believe” voter registration provision, which would have required county recorders to subject registered voters to an unwarranted, discriminatory citizenship check whenever they had a “reason to believe” the voter is not a U.S. citizen.

February 25, 2025: After the Republican National Committee and certain Arizona legislators appealed the original decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the three-judge panel issued a unanimous ruling affirming the district court’s decision on the “reason to believe” provision of the law. This was only the third time in U.S. history that a case was won based on the Different Standards, Practices, and Procedures provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As of mid-May 2025, the case may now be re-heard by an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The RNC and some Arizona legislators have petitioned the Court to rehear the case “en banc,” which means that 11 active judges would review the case anew.

Plaintiff Profile

Poder Latinx

Since 2019, Poder Latinx has mobilized the Latinx community to be active players in democracy and foster a new generation of young leaders equipped to drive meaningful change.

Poder Latinx builds political power for Latinos nationwide, using innovative strategies and tools that resonate with youth. Their work started in Florida, with a small staff providing voting rights information, canvassing, and driving voter registration, and has grown to a nationwide team in Arizona, California, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Washington, also focusing on issue-based education and civic engagement. Their goal is to create a country that represents and fights for everyone, defending and advancing justice and democracy one vote at a time.

Yadira Sánchez, Executive Director at Poder Latinx

“Arizona’s ‘reason to believe’ policy was a clear attempt to suppress naturalized citizens by subjecting them to discriminatory scrutiny. This ruling affirms that no voter should be treated as less American based on where they were born. While this is a step toward a fairer electoral system, voter suppression tactics continue to evolve, targeting communities of color and immigrants. Poder Latinx remains committed to our mission to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to make their voice heard and fully participate in our democracy, and to fight any effort to silence our communities.”

Nancy Herrera, Arizona State Director for Poder Latinx

“Today marks a significant milestone in our pursuit of justice and equality. Our case has successfully struck down the insidious ‘reason to believe’ provision that unjustly targeted individuals based on mere suspicion of non-citizenship and would have been detrimental to the Latinx community. No one should live in fear of exercising their fundamental rights, particularly the right to vote. As a naturalized U.S. citizen myself, I understand the profound impact that these discriminatory measures can have on individuals like me, who could have faced the threat of being denied voter registration and subjected to unnecessary and invasive citizenship checks.”

Chicanos Por La Causa

Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) formed in 1969 in the southwestern United States to fight discrimination against the Mexican American community. Inspired by Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez, a coalition of students, neighbors, parents, and friends came together to demand equal opportunity.

In its early years, CPLC’s leaders organized student walkouts, farmworker protests and boycotts, and a statewide voter registration campaign that led to the election of Arizona’s first Hispanic governor. Since then, they have expanded their focus to include community-building, nonprofit service delivery, and pushing to create more just political and economic systems.

Joseph Garcia, vice president of public policy at Chicanos Por La Causa

“As discouraging as it is when activist politicians attack voting rights, especially targeting Latino and other marginalized communities, it is especially encouraging when the courts ultimately support democracy and justice. The Court’s ruling is a mixed bag, but we are encouraged to see one of the worst parts of these citizenship investigation laws struck down today. Not for one second do we fool ourselves into thinking this is the end of such battles, and our diverse coalition won’t stop defending liberty and democracy.”

Legalese:

Excerpts from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion

These are excerpts from the majority opinion written by Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould. Access the full opinion document here.

Civil Rights Act: Different Standards, Practices, and Procedures Provision

The DSPP Provision of the Civil Rights Act states “[n]o person acting under color of law shall in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws

to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote.”

H.B. 2243’s “reason to believe” provision in effect encourages county recorders to apply different standards, practices, and procedures to naturalized citizens than those standards, practices, and procedures they apply to U.S.-born citizens.

Although a county recorder may in some cases have a reason to think that a person seeking to register to vote is not a citizen, county recorders can only conduct SAVE checks on naturalized citizens and non-citizens because running a citizenship check through SAVE requires an immigration number.

Absent injunction, naturalized citizens would be at risk of county recorders’ subjective decisions to further investigate their citizenship status because of the open-ended “reason to believe” provision, and that provision will not apply to U.S.-born citizens.

Because the “reason to believe” provision “determine[s] whether any individual is qualified under State law . . . to vote in any election” and “appl[ies] a[] standard, practice, or procedure” for naturalized citizens “different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law” to U.S.-born citizens, the “reason to believe” provision violates the DSPP Provision. It need hardly be added that the “reason to believe” provision invites county recorders to pose a barrier to registration for any disfavored individual.

National Voter Registration Act: Uniform, Nondiscriminatory List Maintenance Practices

Section 8(b) of the NVRA provides that “[a]ny State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office. . . shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

Although the Voting Laws are written as if they confirm the citizenship status of all voters, running a citizenship check through SAVE requires an immigration number. As a result, county recorders can only conduct SAVE checks on naturalized citizens and non-citizens. Absent injunction, naturalized citizens would be at risk of county recorders’ subjective decisions to investigate their citizenship status because of the “reason to believe” provision, which will not apply to U.S.-born citizens. The citizenship checks are “likely to have a discriminatory impact on [naturalized] citizens,” and on its face, the “reason to believe” provision would have a non-uniform and discriminatory impact.

We hold that H.B. 2243’s citizenship checks violate Section 8(b) of the NVRA.

Broader Impact:

Documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) laws—such as the SAVE Bill, currently under consideration in Congress, and the Arizona voter registration law that predates the state laws challenged in this consolidated litigation—require eligible voters to produce proof of citizenship, usually from a very small group of valid documents (e.g., birth certificate and U.S. Passport) to either register or stay registered.

Over 20 million eligible voters either lack or lack easy access to documents proving their citizenship, with the groups most likely to be negatively impacted including women who have changed their names, lower-income voters, those serving in the military, the elderly or disabled, young people, and Hispanic voters. These laws serve only to inhibit civic engagement and disenfranchise large swaths of eligible voters across all demographic categories.

Some Quick Stats:

When Kansas enforced a DPOC law from 2013-2016, 35,000 residents were blocked from voting or from registering to vote—99% of whom were eligible U.S. citizens. The law was challenged and ultimately overturned in 2018.

Over 21.3 million eligible voters (9%) across the country do not have, or do not

have easy access to, DPOC. These eligible citizens would be blocked from voting, or severely burdened by, needing to provide DPOC to register to vote or stay registered and exercise their fundamental right to have a voice in our democracy.

46%—less than half of American citizens—have a valid U.S. Passport.

Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, currently lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not currently have a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. Passport/Passport Card, U.S. Naturalization Certificate, or a U.S. Certificate of Citizenship.

8.5 million People of Color either do not have or cannot easily access DPOC.

Roughly 33% of all married women would be unable to use their birth certificate to prove their citizenship if DPOC laws require citizenship documents to reflect a registrant’s current legal name, due to having changed their name after marriage.

69 million American women lack paperwork that reflects their current name.

In 2020, 14% of survey respondents 80 years of age and older reported that they lack access to documents proving their U.S. citizenship. In 2022, older voters (defined as age 65 or older) were 28% of the electorate.

In the same study, 24% of 18–29-year-olds reported that they lacked documentation proving their U.S. citizenship.

In recent case studies in Texas and Georgia, Hispanic voters were less likely to have accessible DPOC (16% of Hispanic Georgians and 8% of Hispanic Texans) than White or Black voters.

In Texas and Georgia, voters making less than $50,000 per year are more than three times as likely to not possess identity documents than their higher-income peers. Voters making less than $30,000 per year are four times as likely not to possess the required documents.