*Rachael Bostian
- Introduction
In its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, in which the Court will consider whether requiring voter registrants to provide documentary proof of their citizenship violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).[1] Many states across the country have implemented show-your-papers laws in response to the heightened fear, however unreasonable, of noncitizens voting.[2] Thus, the decision in this case may determine the statutory bounds of voter registration requirements.[3]
- House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243: The Arizona Show-Your-Papers Laws on the Line
In 2022, the Arizona legislature enacted House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243.[4] House Bill 2492 requires state officials to reject any registrants that submit a state voter registration form without documentation proving their citizenship.[5] The rejected registrant would not be permitted to vote in federal or state elections, departing from previous law.[6] House Bill 2492 also contains a mail-in-voting provision that prevents federal-only voters from voting my mail.[7] House Bill 2243 requires election officials to verify a federal-only voter’s citizenship status if they have “reason to believe” the voter is not a U.S. citizen.[8] The officials must cancel the voter’s registration if they cannot confirm the voter’s status.[9] Together, these statutes are often referred to as show-your-papers laws.[10]
- How Did We End Up Here? A Brief Look at the Procedural History of Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
On March 31, 2022, Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino filed suit against the Arizona secretary of state, the Arizona attorney general, and the county recorders, alleging that Arizona’s voting laws violated the NVRA and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.[11] The Republican National Committee (RNC), the Petersen petitioners, and Arizona’s senate president and house speaker, intervened as defendants.[12]
On a motion for summary judgment, the district court found that the state voter registration form rejection provision was preempted by the NVRA.[13] In February 2024, the district court held a ten-day bench trial, during which it resolved the remaining claims.[14] The court issued a final order granting the plaintiffs a permanent injunction, preventing the state-form rejection provision and mail-voting provision from going into effect.[15] The Petersen petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit, requesting that the court stay portions of the injunction.[16] The Ninth Circuit granted the petitioners’ request in part, staying only the state-form rejection provision.[17] The petitioners then sought an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, in light of the upcoming election.[18] The Court upheld the stay of the state-form rejection provision.[19] The case returned to the Ninth Circuit for a full hearing on the merits.[20] The Ninth Circuit affirmed the relevant portions of the district court’s permanent injunction and held that the NVRA required applicants who failed to provide proof of citizenship to be registered as federal-only voters.[21] The petitioners then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on February 19, 2026.[22] The Court granted the petition on June 29, 2026.[23]
- Arizona Is Not Alone: Other States’ Show-Your-Papers Laws Are Being Challenged
The South Dakota legislature recently approved a law requiring registrants to prove their citizenship to vote in local and state elections.[24] A registrant who fails to provide the required documentation is registered as a federal-only voter and is barred from voting for local or state offices.[25] In August 2026, the South Dakota chapter of the League of Women Voters and a Sioux Falls man filed suit against the South Dakota secretary of state, the state board of elections, and each individual board member, challenging the law’s implementation.[26]
Last year, Ohio’s legislature passed a law similar to Arizona’s House Bill 2243.[27] The law requires the Ohio secretary of state to conduct monthly comparisons of the state’s voter rolls with Ohio’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles database, and orders the cancellation of any registration flagged as that of a potential noncitizen.[28] The League of Women Voters of Ohio and the Council on American-Islamic Relations–Northern Ohio sued the Ohio secretary of state earlier this year to block those provisions from taking effect.[29] Separately, in its transportation budget, Ohio also passed a show-your-papers provision that applies only to people registering to vote at its Bureau of Motor Vehicles.[30] But a district judge issued a preliminary injunction in response to a challenge in federal court, barring enforcement of the provision and suggesting that it conflicts with the NVRA.[31]
Similarly, opponents of New Hampshire’s show-your-papers law prevailed in federal district court.[32] In May, the federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional because it made voting more burdensome by no longer allowing potential voters to prove their citizenship via a sworn affidavit.[33] However, unlike Ohio, New Hampshire is “one of only six states exempt from the requirements of the [NVRA]” because it still allows voter registration on Election Day.[34]
- The Future of Show-Your-Papers Laws Under the NVRA Rests in the Supreme Court’s Hands
Since 2020, concerns about voter eligibility have become more widespread.[35] Many states have responded by enacting show-your-papers laws, requiring voter registrants to provide citizenship documentation.[36] But the validity of these laws under the NVRA may be undercut when the Supreme Court renders its Mi Familia Vota opinion. [37]
*Rachael Bostian is a second-year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she is a Staff Editor for Law Review, Staff Editor for the Global Observer, and a Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Lawyering Skills. She earned her bachelors in Philosophy, Politics, and Law from Binghamton University in 2025.
[1] Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/republican-national-committee-v-mi-familia-vota-2/ (last visited Sept. 2, 2026).
[2] See Andrew Garber & Connie Wu, States Already Enacting Harmful SAVE Act Policies, Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote, Brennan Ctr. For Just. (June 3, 2026), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/states-already-enacting-harmful-save-act-policies-requiring-proof.
[3] Jim Saksa, Supreme Court Will Hear Arizona Case That Could Badly Weaken Key Federal Law Protecting Voter Registration , Democracy Docket (June 29, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/supreme-court-will-hear-arizona-case-that-could-badly-weaken-key-federal-law-protecting-voter-registration/.
[4] Brief in Opposition For Democratic Nat’l Comm. and Ariz. Democratic Party at 4–5, Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Mi Familia Vota, Nos. 25-1017, 25-1019 (U.S. 2026).
[5] Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino Respondents’ Brief in Opposition at 6, Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Mi Familia Vota, Nos. 25-1017, 25-1019 (U.S. 2026).
[6] See id.
[7] Id. at 7.
[8] Brief in Opposition For Democratic Nat’l Comm. and Ariz. Democratic Party, supra note 4, at 4–5.
[9] Id.
[10] Garber & Wu, supra note 2.
[11] Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino Respondents’ Brief in Opposition supra note 4, at 7–8. Other organizations filed their own suits, which were consolidated into the Mi Familia Vota action.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 8–9.
[14] Id. at 9.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 9–10.
[20] Id. at 10.
[21] Id.
[22] SCOTUSblog, supra note 1.
[23] Id.
[24] John Hult, State of South Dakota Faces Lawsuit Over Proof-of-Citizenship Voter Registration Law, S.D. Searchlight (Aug. 24, 2026, 19:21 ET), https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2026/08/24/state-of-south-dakota-faces-lawsuit-over-proof-of-citizenship-voter-registration-law/.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] See Greta Bedekovics & Devon Ombres, The SAVE Act Might Be Stalled in Congress, But State Versions Are Being Advanced All Across the Country, Ctr for Am. Progress (June 29, 2026), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-may-be-stalled-in-congress-but-state-versions-are-being-advanced-all-across-the-country/.
[28] Yunior Rivas, Voting Rights Groups Sue to Block Ohio Law that Purges Voters Without Warning, Democracy Docket (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/voting-rights-groups-sue-to-block-ohio-law-that-purges-voters/.
[29] Id.
[30] Nick Evans, Federal Court Blocks Ohio’s Proof of Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration, Ohio Cap. J. (Sept. 1, 2026, 4:00 ET), https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2026/09/01/federal-court-blocks-ohios-proof-of-citizenship-requirements-for-voter-registration/.
[31] Id.
[32] See Todd Bookman, A Judge Struck Down NH’s ‘Proof of Citizenship’ Voting Law. Here’s What to Know., NHPR (June 1, 2026, 15:45 EDT), https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2026-05-29/nh-newhampshire-voting-elections-citizenship-proof.
[33] New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan, 833 F. Supp. 3d 93, 98–100, 101–02 (D. N.H. 2026).
[34] Id. at 101. See also The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) U.S. Dep’t of Just.: Civ. Rts. Div. (last visited Oct. 1, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra.
[35] Matt Loffman, Americans Are Increasingly Worried About Voting, New Poll Shows, PBS News (Mar. 11, 2026, 5:00 EDT), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americans-are-increasingly-worried-about-voting-new-poll-shows.
[36] See discussion supra Section IV.
[37] See discussion supra Section IV.
