How AG Mayes’s Supreme Court Brief Undermines Arizona’s Citizen-Only Voting Law

ARIZONA - Attorney General Kris Mayes told the public last week that she is defending Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law at the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief her office filed does not ask the Court to put that 2022 law fully into force. It defends one legal theory, leaves a 2018 settlement sitting on top of the statute, and skips the roll-cleanup provision entirely. For voters who want “citizens only” to mean something at the clerk’s counter, the filing undercuts the law her press release claims to defend.

What Arizona’s citizen-only laws were written to do

Arizona’s constitution already says only U.S. citizens may vote. The 2022 statutes were written to enforce that rule, not to repeat it.

House Bill 2492 is the front door. If a person uses Arizona’s state registration form and does not prove citizenship, the application is supposed to be rejected. That person does not get parked on the rolls as a “federal-only” voter.

House Bill 2243 is the back door. If officials later confirm that someone already on the rolls is not a citizen, the recorder sends a 35-day letter. If no proof arrives, the registration is canceled, even close to an election.

That is the package the legislature passed after 2020. The Supreme Court case now in front of the justices is the test of whether those statutes can actually operate.

What Mayes told the public

On August 28, the Attorney General’s Office posted the same message it put on its website. The post says Mayes “filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending Arizona’s authority to require proof of citizenship from voters who register using the state’s own registration form.” You can read that announcement here:

The press release goes further. The headline says she “defends Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voter registration law.” Her quote says, “I am proud to defend Arizona’s laws at the Supreme Court.”

A voter who stops there would think she asked the Court to turn the 2022 laws on.

What she told the Court

The brief’s own caption is the tell. It is filed as a brief “in partial support of petitioner.”

She told the justices three things. Only the first one helps the 2022 statutes.

First, she argued that the federal voter-registration law does not stop Arizona from demanding proof of citizenship on the state form. That is a real statutory argument, and it is the only argument the press release describes.

Second, she told the Court that a 2018 settlement in LULAC v. Reagan still binds the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder. Under that deal, an empty state form is not rejected. The applicant is registered for federal races instead. Mayes says that order remains in force until someone files a separate motion to lift it.

Third, she said nothing about House Bill 2243. The cleanup law is sitting in the same Supreme Court case. The Republican National Committee briefed it. The United States briefed it. Arizona’s own attorney general did not.

The 2018 settlement is the lock she left on the door

The 2018 deal was not passed by the legislature and was not approved by the voters. It was signed by then-Secretary of State Michele Reagan and then-Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes to settle a lawsuit by LULAC of Arizona and the Arizona Students’ Association.

The settlement says county recorders must treat the state form like the federal form. No documents, and no Motor Vehicle record proving citizenship, means the person still gets registered for federal elections.

House Bill 2492 says the opposite. The empty state form is supposed to be rejected.

Mayes’s brief tells the Supreme Court that the 2022 statute is valid under federal law and that the 2018 settlement still controls the officials who signed it. That is how a “defense” brief can leave the statute short of enforcement. After this case ends, the old settlement can snap back into place unless someone wins a new fight in district court.

The Republican National Committee asked the Court to take that second lock off. Mayes asked the Court to leave it on.

She also left the back door undefended

Citizen-only voting is not only about who gets on the list. It is about who comes off the list when officials later learn the person was never eligible.

House Bill 2243 is that back-door rule. Mayes did not brief it.

When the State’s own lawyer sits out a question, the other side will tell the justices that Arizona does not really stand behind that provision. Courts notice silence. A brief that claims to defend “Arizona’s laws” and then skips one of the two 2022 statutes is not a full defense.

The press release makes the mismatch louder

The office’s own X post and press release describe a defense of the proof-of-citizenship law. The brief describes a partial defense of one statute and a request to keep the 2018 settlement in place.

Opponents can now quote Mayes against a fuller win. They can say she only asked the Court to bless the state’s authority to put proof on the state form. They can say she did not ask the Court to wipe out the settlement or revive the cleanup law. That reading matches the brief.

The press release is the problem on top of the brief. It sells the filing as something the caption itself refuses to call it.

This is not an argument for noncitizen voting

Mayes is not telling the Court that noncitizens should receive a ballot. She is not telling the Court that proof of citizenship is illegal.

She is telling the Court that Arizona has the authority to put a proof demand on its own form, and that an old settlement two officials signed still stops that authority from working until someone undoes the settlement in another courtroom. That is how elected lawmakers can pass a citizen-only enforcement statute and still watch an old court deal act as a veto the public cannot reach.

Senate President Warren Petersen, who is also running against Mayes on November 3, has been on the other side of that fight. In July he posted that he filed a brief “supporting DHS’s efforts to ensure that only citizens are voting in our elections.” That post is here:

Petersen’s office is asking the Supreme Court for the fuller win Mayes declined to request.

Why the press release looks like a defense

Mayes is on the November 3 ballot. “I defended proof of citizenship at the Supreme Court” is a useful sentence 66 days before that election. “I also told the Court the 2018 settlement still blocks the law” is not.

The statutory argument in the first half of her brief is real. The press release is still overclaim. It is a campaign-adjacent summary of a brief that undercuts full enforcement.

What the Court can still do

The justices have two paths.

On Mayes’s path, the Court says the federal statute does not block proof on the state form, the 2018 settlement stays until a new motion kills it, and the cleanup law is left hanging. That is a paper win.

On the legislature’s path, the Court says the federal statute does not block the state-form rule, a 2018 deal two officials signed cannot veto a 2022 statute, and confirmed noncitizens can come off the rolls even inside 90 days of a federal election. That is the 2022 law actually running.

Mayes asked for the first path. The officials who wrote the statutes asked for the second.

Bottom line

Mayes defended a theory. She did not defend the citizen-only statutes as they were written to operate.

If you care about the law at the registration counter, read the caption on the brief, not the headline on azag.gov or the post from

The words that matter are “partial support.” That is how Arizona’s attorney general undercut Arizona’s citizen-only law while telling the public she was defending it.

________

EZcivics.org is funded by our readers. If you found this news brief educational, consider chipping in to fuel our work by going HERE.