Cases compared
Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. vs. Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al. vs. Daniel Richard, Petitioner v. Kelly Ayotte, Governor of New Hampshire, et al.
Elections cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1019No. 25-1022No. 25-1390
Side by side
| Fact | Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, et al., Petitioners v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. | Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. Promise Arizona, et al. | Daniel Richard, Petitioner v. Kelly Ayotte, Governor of New Hampshire, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1019 | 25-1022 | 25-1390 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. 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? 2. 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? | 1. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State from implementing a program to remove noncitizens from its voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election? 2. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State, or a consent decree prohibits Arizona, from requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections using the state registration form? 3. Whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits a State from denying individuals who used the federal registration form, which does not require documentary proof of citizenship, the ability to vote by mail? 4. Whether the court of appeals erred in remanding for further proceedings to determine if Arizona H.B. 2243 was unconstitutionally enacted with discriminatory intent? | 1. Whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied meaningful judicial review under the Elections Clause and Qualifications Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, in violation of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), by declaring N.H. Const, pt. II, art. 32 “silent” on the method of ballot counting expressly required by that provision and by disregarding its own binding precedent in Fischer v. Governor, 145 N.H. 28 (2000). 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), is violated when a state court dismisses as a non-justiciable “generalized grievance” a qualified voter’s claim that his in-person, hand-counted ballot—cast under strict constitutional verification standards, was commingled and tabulated with hundreds of thousands of absentee and machine-counted ballots processed under materially weaker verification and transparency standards. |
| Summary | Arizona legislative leaders ask the Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision that blocked parts of Arizona’s voter-registration and mail-voting rules requiring documentary proof of citizenship or residence. The case also concerns the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a related Arizona law directing election officials to check databases for potentially ineligible voters was enacted with intentional discrimination. | Arizona asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed nonprofit groups to challenge Arizona voter-citizenship laws and concluded that the laws were enacted with intentional discrimination. Arizona argues that the groups lacked standing based on possible injuries to unidentified members and that the Ninth Circuit improperly overturned the trial court’s finding of no discriminatory purpose. | Daniel Richard asks the Supreme Court to review the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s dismissal of his challenge to the State’s ballot-counting and ballot-verification practices. He argues that the state court failed to provide required judicial review of the state constitution’s election provisions and wrongly treated his claim that differing ballot procedures diluted his vote as a generalized grievance. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Elections
- Why compared
- Reviewed Elections tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.