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. Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Don M. Millis, Commissioner, Wisconsin Elections Commission
Elections cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1019No. 25-1022No. 25-1288
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. | Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Don M. Millis, Commissioner, Wisconsin Elections Commission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1019 | 25-1022 | 25-1288 |
| 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 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901–21145, creates federal rights enforceable by private litigants through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or otherwise, a question that has deeply divided the federal courts of appeals and resulted in a state-by-state checkerboard of HAVA election law enforcement. 2. Whether a state’s total deprivation of HAVA-mandated administrative procedures, hearings, and remedies constitutes a concrete Article III injury-in-fact, or whether such a deprivation is merely a bare procedural violation that precludes federal judicial review of state election administration. |
| 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. | This pending case asks whether Wisconsin voters and an advocacy group may sue state election officials in federal court over an alleged failure to provide administrative procedures, hearings, and remedies required by the Help America Vote Act. The Court has not yet decided the case. |
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.