Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) bars Arizona from requiring a document proving citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, to register to vote in federal elections. The Court will also decide whether the NVRA prevents the state from systematically removing voters who are suspected of being ineligible from the rolls during the 90-day quiet period before an election. 

On behalf of political scientist D. Sunshine Hillygus (Duke University), political scientist Kevin T. Morris (Brennan Center), and historian Susan J. Pearson (Northwestern University), the Brennan Center filed a brief that demonstrates how “show your papers” requirements burden voters. The brief also explains why clear, predictable deadlines — such as the quiet period at issue in the case — balance states’ administrative needs with maximum voter participation.

Congress passed the NVRA to provide a uniform and simplified form for voters to use when registering to vote in federal elections. The federal form requires voters to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens. States may also issue their own registration forms but, when registering voters for federal elections, the NVRA prohibits states from asking for more information than is necessary to determine voters’ eligibility. For this reason, nearly every state voter registration form relies upon a similar attestation to prove citizenship. The NVRA also requires a 90-day quiet period before federal elections, preventing states from systematically removing voters from the rolls during that time. 

In 2004, Arizona became the first state to require Americans to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other information proving their U.S. citizenship when they register to vote. That requirement reached the Supreme Court in 2013, when the Court held that Arizona could not impose these additional documentation requirements on voters who register to vote using the federal form, as opposed to the state registration form. In a separate lawsuit arising out of the state’s registration requirements, a federal district court in 2018 issued a consent decree with clear directions for Arizona election officials: If a voter completes the state registration form but lacks documentary proof of citizenship, they must still be registered as federal-only voters eligible to vote in only federal elections.  

In 2022, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2492, which, among other changes, requires election officials to reject voters who complete the state registration form but fail to provide documentary proof of citizenship, contrary to the 2018 consent decree. The legislature also passed House Bill 2243, which includes a provision requiring election officials to remove suspected noncitizens from voter rolls on a monthly basis, even during the 90-day quiet period before a federal election.  

Voting rights groups sued. In 2023, a federal district court in Arizona held that certain provisions of both H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 are preempted by the NVRA. The Republican National Committee and Arizona legislators, who intervened in the case, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On behalf of four voting rights groups, the Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the circuit court to debunk the intervenors’ argument that Congress lacks authority over presidential elections. In February 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.  

While the Ninth Circuit proceedings played out, the intervenors filed a separate emergency motion with the Supreme Court asking it to revive portions of the laws while the litigation ensued. The Court granted parts of that request but declined to revive the provision requiring documentary proof of citizenship for Arizonans voting only in federal elections. 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the intervenors once again asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. The Court granted that request on June 29, 2026 and set a briefing schedule. 

On October 20, 2026, the Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the groups that challenged the Arizona laws. The brief provides research to show how and why the NVRA’s safeguards matter for voters: They provide predictable, reasonable rules that prevent administrative burdens, costs, and confusion from wrongfully disenfranchising voters as an election approaches. 

First, research estimates that nearly 21.3 million people, or 9.1 percent of American citizens of voting age, lack ready access to a document proving citizenship. The brief explains the costs and burdens that Arizona’s laws would impose on voters who need to obtain such documents. And it shows how these costs and burdens can disproportionately affect certain groups, including Native American voters, married women, and young voters.  

Second, research demonstrates that a voter wrongfully removed from the rolls right before an election could face substantial costs and be deterred or prevented from voting altogether. That research explains why Congress set a 90-day quiet period before federal elections: It protects voters during the critical window in which they may not be able to correct a wrongful removal.  

Congress struck a deliberate balance between the needs of states and voters when it created the NVRA safeguards at issue in the case. The brief concludes by calling on the Court to respect that balance by affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision. 

Oral argument will take place before the Supreme Court on December 8, 2026.