Arizona lawmakers must testify on voting laws and Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that two Arizona lawmakers must testify about their reasons for supporting state laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.

The court’s brief order did not provide any reasoning, which is typical of judges who act in urgent cases. No dissenting opinions were noted.

The Justice Department, the Democratic National Committee, civil rights groups and others had challenged the state laws, claiming they conflicted with federal law and were enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

After Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, refused to defend aspects of the laws, Ben Toma, the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and Warren Petersen, the President of the Arizona Senate, both Republicans , intervened to defend it.

Legislators are generally protected by legislative privilege from scrutiny of their motives for supporting or voting for legislation. In September, Judge Susan R. Boltonof the Federal District Court in Arizona, ruled that a different analysis applied when lawmakers voluntarily intervened in a lawsuit.

“The Speaker and the President have each waived their privilege by intervening to ‘fully defend’ voting laws and question their motives,” Judge Bolton wroteadding that the two lawmakers could be forced to testify about their activities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially blocked Judge Bolton’s ruling, but later rescinded the stay, allowing the men’s depositions to proceed. Lawmakers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

“Unless the court declares an immediate stay,” they told the judges an urgent request“legislative leaders will soon find themselves between the mythical Scylla and Charybdis: they will either have to submit to inappropriate declarations or refuse to do so and expose themselves to possible sanctions and charges of contempt. Both choices carry serious consequences that cannot be corrected.”

In answerLawyers for the Democratic National Committee wrote that the lawmakers tried to have it both ways by arguing that the laws were not the product of discriminatory intent but refused to be questioned on the issue. That, they wrote, is “completely alien to the fundamental principles of our hostile legal system, and to fundamental fairness.”