The Supreme Court Will Soon Hear Another Case with Profound Impacts for Voters: What’s at Stake in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) is one of the most important federal laws promoting voting rights and broad political participation throughout the U.S.1 For over thirty years, the NVRA, also known as the “Motor Voter” law, has greatly expanded voting access by requiring states to offer voter registration opportunities through their departments of motor vehicles, as well as through agencies offering assistance to low-income individuals and the disabled.2

But in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota3 – a U.S. Supreme Court case set for oral argument on December 8, 2026 – the NVRA could be seriously weakened if the Court upholds a set of Arizona laws designed to suppress registration and voting, especially among low-income citizens and people of color. The Arizona laws would require that eligible voters show documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) in order to register to vote, and voters across the state could be purged from the voter rolls if they are suspected of lacking citizenship. 

The stakes in this case are high. At a moment when the country is still reeling from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais,4 where the Court gutted a major section of the federal Voting Rights Act, an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota would upend another vital federal law and undermine Congress’ power over federal elections, compounding the barriers to ballot access and representation faced by low-income voters and voters of color. And it would give license to other states trying to commit widespread voter suppression by replicating Arizona’s DPOC statutes. A strong multiracial democracy requires expanding access through laws like the NVRA, not shrinking the electorate for partisan gains.  

What’s at Stake in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota 

In 2022, Arizona passed two laws under the guise of promoting election integrity that are actually designed to suppress voting and protect partisan power. H.B. 24925 requires individuals using state voter registration forms to provide documentary proof of citizenship such as a copy of a state birth certificate, a naturalization document, a U.S. passport, or a tribal enrollment document. H.B. 22436 empowers local officials to purge voters who have not provided DPOC from the rolls, even during the NVRA’s 90-day “quiet period” that prohibits changes to voter rolls right before an election.7 

One recent survey estimated that 21.3 million citizens nationwide either have no DPOC at all or lack ready access to the documents.

The Arizona laws were enacted despite virtually no evidence of fraud or extensive noncitizen voting and, like other state laws that impose unnecessary burdens on voting, have the effect of suppressing the voting power of many marginalized communities, particularly voters of color. Across all groups of voters, DPOC requirements can cause serious impediments, because many people lack basic proof of U.S. citizenship: State birth certificates may be lost or misplaced, and replacing them can often take months, and most Americans do not have a U.S. passport. One recent survey estimated that 21.3 million citizens nationwide either have no DPOC at all or lack ready access to the documents.8 

And DPOC requirements can hit an even broader array of voters. Married people (mostly women) who have changed their last names face extra burdens to prove their citizenship, because their documents may not match theirlast name.9 People of color also lack any DPOC or have less-ready access to the necessary documentation at higher rates than white voters.10 In addition, DPOC requirements place major administrative and financial burdens on state and local government and can cost states millions of dollars to implement.11 

Mi Familia Vota, a national Latino advocacy organization, and other plaintiffs in related cases, immediately challenged the Arizona laws in court. They argued that, among other things, this pair of laws violated voters’ constitutional rights, discriminated against Latinos and Native Americans, and were inconsistent with the NVRA. A central argument is that the Arizona laws are preempted by the NVRA because Congress’ constitutional powers to regulate federal elections supersede the states’ powers, and the federal Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and the federal courts’ preemption doctrine require that the state laws be invalidated. Once Congress enacted the NVRA, it created clear paths to voter registration that the states, even with their general powers over election administration, could not compromise. 

The cases were consolidated, and a federal district court halted the implementation of the laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the Arizona laws were unlawful on multiple grounds, including preemption.12 The Republican National Committee (RNC) then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court narrowed the appeal to only a few issues, focusing largely on the DPOC requirements for state registration forms and the purging of voters during the 90-day quiet period. 

This is not the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed Arizona’s attempts to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements. In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a state ballot initiative that applied DPOC requirements across both federal and state elections and included the voter registration forms offered nationally by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. In 2013, the Court ruled in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona13 that Congress’ power to regulate the running of federal elections, including the content of the federal registration form, preempted Arizona’s additional DPOC requirements for citizens using the federal form. That precedent is also threatened by the RNC’s appeal in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota.  

The Threat to Section 7 of the NVRA 

The DPOC requirements at issue in the case have direct implications for the NVRA, which was enacted to lessen the burdens on voter registration by creating opportunities for voters to register at motor vehicle departments and other state agencies. Congress clearly intended to make voter registration easier through the NVRA, particularly for members of marginalized groups. The DPOC requirements at stake directly undercut that intent. If the Supreme Court rules that the Arizona DPOC laws are consistent with the NVRA, they will clear the path for states to enact highly burdensome and suppressive laws and weaken Congress' power over federal elections. States will have a license to undermine the NVRA and other laws passed by Congress to protect voting rights. 

One of the major preemption questions in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota turns on the interpretation of a single phrase and whether a state voter registration form with a set of DPOC requirements “is equivalent to” a federal form that has no such requirements. This language is found in Section 7, which is the portion of the NVRA that requires states to provide voter registration opportunities at agencies that offer public assistance – including programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Women, Infants & Children program (WIC) – as well as agencies serving the disabled.14  

In enacting Section 7, Congress recognized that many potential voters have limited financial means and may rely on public transportation or be homebound; they would either not need access to a department of motor vehicles or they would have difficulty gaining access.15 Congress concluded that public assistance agencies and disability agencies would be stronger hubs for voter registration and offer access to millions more potential voters nationwide by easing their burdens on registration.  

Section 7 has helped increase access to voter registration for millions of individuals from marginalized communities, including voters of color, through public assistance agencies. In its first year of implementation, over 2.6 million people registered through public assistance agencies, and low-income voters continue to take advantage of the opportunities each year.16 According to U.S. census data for the November 2024 election, over 1.56 million voters had used a public assistance agency to register to vote.17 And usage is significantly higher among voters of color. For the November 2024 election, among Black voters, the percentage of registered voters who registered at public assistance agencies was 2.2 percent – more than double the national average – and among Latino voters, the percentage was 1.6 percent.18

Still, state compliance with Section 7 has been inconsistent, and participation gaps have resulted because of noncompliance by states that have failed to offer adequate registration services through their agencies.19 Decades of advocacy, including litigation by Dēmos and our partners, have resulted in millions more voters gaining access to voter registration; yet, even after thirty-plus years of NVRA implementation, new problems of compliance can still arise.20  

Imposing DPOC requirements would only make things worse by adding more layers of burden to both public assistance agencies and potential registrants. Public assistance agencies are charged with implementing complex eligibility requirements and often-confusing regulations, and spending gaps and the underfunding of public agencies are commonplace.21 Requiring agencies to shoulder the burden of verifying citizenship would require separate document review, database changes, staff training, and outreach, and it would add to the millions of dollars that are likely to be needed to implement DPOC requirements statewide.22 Individuals seeking public assistance already must navigate complex rules and systems to gain access to benefits and services; adding proof-of-citizenship requirements would only compound existing obstacles and lead to even greater gaps in political participation.  

What's Next in the Supreme Court 

There are several legal questions before the Supreme Court in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, chief among them being whether Arizona’s DPOC regime can stand. The central issue involving Section 7 focuses on whether the Arizona laws are preempted by the NVRA – and it literally comes down to the meaning of a single word. The language of Section 7 requires that a state voter registration form offered by a public assistance agency must be “equivalent” to the federal form, which has no DPOC requirements at all.23  

While it seems obvious from the purpose and text of the NVRA, as well as common sense, that requiring extra documentation for a state registration process is not at all "equivalent" to what federal forms require, the RNC and others are arguing just the opposite – that "equivalent" should be interpreted loosely, and states should be allowed to add more requirements to maintain their traditional role in administering elections. How the Supreme Court should interpret this single word is at the heart of the debate. 

Despite the clear purpose of the NVRA to lessen registration burdens and to encourage greater political participation, the outcome of the Mi Familia Vota case remains precarious. During its last term, the Supreme Court reversed decades of case law protecting voters of color in Louisiana v. Callais, when it imposed almost insurmountable requirements for lawsuits filed under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court purport to employ strict readings of statutory text and narrow interpretations of Congress’s intent, but they may still engage in judicial activism by offering opaque or twisted interpretations of Section 7 and other parts of the NVRA, just as they did with the Voting Rights Act in the Callais case. 

For the Supreme Court to rule that the Arizona DPOC laws are lawful would fly in the face of the clear intent and language of the NVRA

For the Supreme Court to rule that the Arizona DPOC laws are lawful would fly in the face of the clear intent and language of the NVRA and only lead to confusion and the suppression of voting in communities across the country. The NVRA and Section 7 in particular were designed to promote greater political participation and to make it easier for Americans, particularly those in the most marginalized communities, to register and to vote. A thriving democracy demands nothing less. 

Dēmos is working to ensure registering to vote doesn’t get harder. Read the amicus brief we filed in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota.