In 2022, the state of Arizona passed legislation which requires voters to show proof of citizenship before they may cast a ballot.

That law was later blocked by a judge, prompting Republicans to seek redress from the Supreme Court. 

Ninth Circuit upholds injunction

As MSNBC legal blog writer Jordan Rubin noted in an article published on Tuesday, a district court issued an injunction in late February which barred the law from being enforced.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona House of Representatives subsequently appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

However, a three-judge panel approved the injunction as did a second panel despite a strongly worded dissent from Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee.

He wrote, "All the public can take away from this episode is that four judges of the Ninth Circuit have voted to partially stay the injunction here, while two other judges voted against it."

Dissent cited in request for emergency relief

"The two judges prevail — not because of any special insight, but because of the luck of an internal Ninth Circuit draw," Bumatay went on to add.

The plaintiffs cite Bumatay's dissent in their petition for emergency petition for relief from America's highest judicial body.

"RNC, Arizona GOP turn to US Supreme Court in voter registration case." (via @maryjpitzl) https://t.co/XwETvu2P1g

— Dan Nowicki (@dannowicki) August 9, 2024

It goes on to complain that the injunction "is an unprecedented abrogation of the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections."

Rubin pointed out how the second panel concluded that its predecessor had "overlooked 'considerations specific to election cases' and misunderstood the extent of confusion and chaos that would be engendered by a late-stage alteration to the status quo of Arizona’s election rules in apparent disregard of the Supreme Court's admonitions in Purcell v. Gonzalez."

Case could have "important" implications

Yet the RNC and Republican lawmakers contend that this second panel incorrectly applied the standard with the Supreme Court laid out in Purcell.

Specifically, they stress that the Supreme Court "has repeatedly instructed that the Purcell principle bars federal courts from enjoining the enforcement of state election laws with an election impending."

Rubin went on to conclude his piece by suggesting that "the outcome could hinge on which side the high court thinks has the better reading of this principle," something which will have "important" implications for elections cases.