Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, No. 25-1017, is a Supreme Court case that asks whether the National Voter Registration Act bars two Arizona voter registration rules, according to the Court's question presented document. One rule requires people who register with the state form to show proof of U.S. citizenship. The other cancels the registrations of people found not to be citizens, including in the 90 days before a federal election. The Court's docket shows the petition was granted on June 29, 2026, and the case was set for argument on Tuesday, December 8, 2026.
The two questions before the Court
The question presented document lists two questions, in these words:
- "Does the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibit Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form?"
- "Does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens?"
The same document says the Ninth Circuit held that the act preempts the Arizona provisions at issue, and that Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship from registration applicants because a previous Arizona Secretary of State entered a consent decree with private litigants in 2018. It also says the Supreme Court has granted an emergency stay on each issue, one in this case and one in a Fourth Circuit case.
What the Ninth Circuit decided
The case reached the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit, where it was titled Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen. The opinion was filed on February 25, 2025, by a panel of Judges Wardlaw, Gould and Bumatay. Judge Gould wrote the opinion and Judge Bumatay dissented.
The summary that court staff prepared for that opinion, which states that it is not part of the opinion, describes a challenge to two Arizona laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243. It says the challenge was brought by the United States, several nonprofits, the Democratic National Committee, the Arizona Democratic Party and three federally recognized Tribes. On the points now before the Supreme Court, the summary says the panel held:
- The requirement that county recorders reject state-form applications that lack documentary proof of citizenship violates the consent decree in League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona v. Reagan.
- In the alternative, the National Voter Registration Act does not let states require documentary proof of citizenship from state-form applicants registering for only federal elections.
- The periodic cancellation of registrations violates the act's 90-day provision to the extent that H.B. 2243 authorizes systematic cancellation of registrations within 90 days before a federal election.
The summary says Judge Bumatay, in dissent, stated that most of the voter-verification laws are consistent with the Constitution and federal law, and that the panel should have vacated and substantially narrowed the injunction.
What each side argues
The positions below come from the summary of argument in each party's own brief.
Republican National Committee. The petitioner's brief argues that the act does not bar Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship, because state officials may gather information "necessary to enable" them to assess an applicant's eligibility and the word "necessary" can mean useful or helpful. It argues that Arizona's state form is "equivalent" to the federal form, and that a consent decree not based on a finding of a federal violation cannot limit the legislature's authority. On the second question, it argues that removing noncitizens does not trigger the 90-day provision because noncitizens are not "ineligible voters" under the act.
United States. The government's brief argues that the proof-of-citizenship requirement for state-form registrants complies with the act, and that a federal consent decree typically must yield to a significant change in law. On the second question, it argues that the act's limits on removing names from the official lists of eligible voters apply only to people who were properly listed in the first place.
State of Arizona and its Attorney General. The state's brief argues that the act does not prohibit Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship from state-form applicants. It also argues that the 2018 consent decree does limit the ability of Arizona election officials to require that proof, and that the decree binds the defendants in that case until it is vacated or modified.
Mi Familia Vota and the other respondents on its brief. The respondents' brief argues that Arizona may require documentary proof of citizenship for state and local elections, but that for federal elections the act lets the state form require only information that is "necessary," which it reads as essential. It argues that the consent decree is a binding federal judgment that the petitioners never asked the issuing court to modify or set aside. On the second question, it argues that the act contains no exception for removals that target potential noncitizens, and that the purpose of the 90-day provision is to protect eligible voters from being removed by mistake shortly before an election.
This page will be updated at this address after the argument on December 8 and again when the Court issues its decision.