Republicans Challenge Election Rules: Dangerous Supreme Court Petition
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has launched a high-stakes legal battle that could shake up the rules governing US federal elections. With November’s elections just around the corner, the RNC, backed by 24 states, is seeking an urgent Supreme Court ruling to alter the way presidential elections are regulated. This attempt, if successful, could significantly impact voting laws and the integrity of elections.
The RNC’s Bold Legal Move
The RNC’s new legal strategy targets the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal statute enacted in 1993. This law established uniform rules for voter registration in federal elections, aiming to simplify and standardise the process across states. The RNC’s latest petition argues that Congress lacks the authority to regulate presidential elections, focusing instead on congressional elections.
Key Points:
- Petition Focus: Questioning Congress’s authority over presidential election rules.
- Immediate Goal: Allow Arizona to enforce a “proof of citizenship” requirement for presidential voting.
The NVRA and Its Implications
The NVRA requires states to offer voter registration at motor vehicle departments and public assistance agencies. It also mandates a federal voter registration form that only needs an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury. Arizona, however, passed a law in 2022 demanding additional documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), such as a passport or birth certificate, for presidential voting.
Key Points:
- NVRA Requirements: Standardised federal voter registration processes.
- Arizona’s Law: Requires DPOC for presidential elections, not enforced due to a 2013 Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court’s 2013 Decision
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the NVRA preempts state laws requiring additional documentation for presidential voting. This ruling barred Arizona from imposing its DPOC requirement alongside the federal registration form. The current petition asks the Court to reconsider this decision, arguing that states have exclusive authority over presidential election regulations.
Key Points:
- 2013 Ruling: NVRA preempts additional state requirements for presidential voting.
- Current Petition: Seeks to overturn or narrow this decision.
Constitutional Arguments and the Electors Clause
The RNC and its allies base their argument on the Constitution’s electors clause, which grants states the authority to establish the process for appointing presidential electors. They argue this clause provides states broad power over presidential election regulations. This is reminiscent of debates over the independent legislature doctrine, which suggests state legislatures could override popular votes in certain circumstances.
Key Points:
- Electors Clause: Grants states authority over electors’ appointment process.
- Independent Legislature Doctrine: Controversial theory on state legislative powers.
Allegations of Illegal Voting
The petitioners argue that undocumented immigrants are voting illegally and that this has influenced election outcomes in states like Minnesota and North Carolina. They claim that allowing states to enforce stricter registration requirements will address this issue. However, there is no substantial evidence of widespread non-citizen voting.
Key Points:
- Allegations: Claims of illegal voting by non-citizens influencing election results.
- Evidence: No substantial proof of widespread illegal voting.
Legal Challenges and Timing
The RNC faces significant hurdles. The Purcell principle, established in earlier cases, advises against last-minute changes to election laws to prevent voter confusion and disruption. The petition’s timing, coming less than three months before the election, raises concerns about potential chaos if the Court rules in favour of Arizona’s law.
Key Points:
- Purcell Principle: Advises against last-minute legal changes before elections.
- Timing Issues: Potential disruption if ruling favours Arizona’s law.
Historical Precedents and Congressional Authority
Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld Congress’s power to regulate various aspects of presidential elections. This includes laws governing campaign finance, voting age, and absentee voting. The NVRA also builds on protections against racial discrimination in voting, as outlined in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Key Points:
- Historical Precedents: Court upholds Congressional power over presidential elections.
- NVRA Foundations: Based on protections against racial discrimination.
The RNC’s Strategic Goals
Even if the RNC loses in court, the strategy may still achieve its aims. The case could bolster claims of widespread illegal voting, fostering an environment ripe for post-election disputes. Additionally, the RNC is pursuing other legal challenges, including claims regarding mail-in ballot processing and the independent-state-legislature doctrine.
Key Points:
- Strategic Goals: Build case for post-election fraud claims and set up future legal battles.
- Other Challenges: Claims regarding mail-in ballots and state legislative powers.
Conclusion: A High-Risk Legal Battle
The RNC’s latest legal manoeuvre represents a high-risk, high-reward strategy that could reshape election laws and impact voter confidence. With the elections rapidly approaching, the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will be crucial in determining whether states like Arizona can impose stricter voting requirements. The outcome will not only influence the upcoming elections but also set important precedents for future election laws.
