Supreme Court weighs vote-help limits in Texas and Arizona

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to take up election-law fights in Arkansas, Texas, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, with voting-rights groups challenging rules that restrict help for limited-English voters and mailed-ballot assistance, while Republicans s

Supreme Court justices are stepping into a familiar kind of courtroom pressure this term: states drawing lines around who can receive help voting. who can register. and what can disqualify a ballot. For advocates. the stakes feel personal—especially for voters who rely on language assistance or mail to make it to the polls.

The justices, divided along conservative and liberal lines in earlier election-related rulings, essentially nullified Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Now. the fight over election rules is shifting to new case filings that could shape how far states can go without running afoul of federal protections.

In the coming days. the Supreme Court is expected to weigh whether to review laws in Arkansas and Texas that voting-rights groups say illegally make it harder for people with limited English proficiency to vote. The court is also being asked by the Trump administration to revive voter registration rules in Arizona that lower courts said suppress the vote. Republicans are also appealing a Pennsylvania ballot ruling that could boost Democrats’ chances in that battleground state.

If the Supreme Court accepts any of the cases, they are likely to be argued in the next term that begins in October, with decisions handed down after the midterm elections. The court could begin taking up matters as early as June 22.

Arkansas criminalizes help for more than six voters

One challenge centers on an Arkansas law that makes it a crime for anyone who is not an election official to help more than six voters cast a ballot. Arkansas United. a group that helps immigrants. says it has received more requests for help voting than it can fulfill because of the state’s restriction.

State officials say the law—on the books since 2009—prevents “professional assisters” from exploiting a federal civil rights law that allows voters to receive help because of difficulty with English or other issues. A federal judge ruled against the state, but a federal appeals court reversed that decision. The appeals court said the Voting Rights Act can only be enforced by the federal government and not through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, representing Arkansas United, is appealing that ruling. The group is seeking both to get rid of Arkansas’ law and to preserve the right of individuals to raise other voting rights challenges.

Texas limits compensation for mailed-ballot help

Texas is facing a separate challenge tied to voter assistance—this time focused on who can be paid to help someone cast a ballot by mail.

Under an “election integrity” bill Texas enacted in 2020. it is a crime to pay someone to help a voter cast a ballot by mail. Voting rights groups challenging the restriction say the law blocks social service organizations from helping voters with disabilities or those who are not proficient in English. creating a conflict with the Voting Rights Act.

A federal judge agreed with the challengers, but an appeals court reversed. Texas argues that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit got it right because the federal law is silent on compensation for voter assistance, leaving no conflict between federal and state law.

In its Supreme Court appeal, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the justices should get involved because state legislatures are increasingly imposing new burdens on voters who are supposed to be protected by the federal law.

Arizona’s registration rules face a new push from the administration

The Supreme Court is also being asked to step into Arizona’s voter registration system—a dispute that, in this version, has the Trump administration urging the court to act.

Republicans are hoping to revive state voter registration laws in Arizona that lower courts said conflict with federal rules and suppress the vote.

The National Voter Registration Act requires states to “accept and use” a standard form to register voters for federal elections. That form requires voters to swear—under penalty of perjury—that they are citizens.

Arizona’s voter registration form, by contrast, requires documentary proof of citizenship.

Two disputed issues are at the center of the fight. One is whether a voter who registers using the federal form can be barred from voting by mail unless they provide proof of citizenship. Another is whether Arizona must allow voters who submit the state registration form but don’t provide citizenship documentation to still vote in federal elections.

The Supreme Court is also being asked to decide whether Arizona’s method of purging voter rolls of anyone it thinks may not be a citizen violates a federal ban on systematic registration cancellations within 90 days of an election.

During the Biden administration, the federal government challenged Arizona’s rules. The federal government is now defending the rules in the Supreme Court appeal. The Trump administration’s Justice Department has told the justices they should hear the Republican National Committee’s appeal to settle “these important election-law issues outside the setting of a contested election.”.

Republicans seek to overturn Pennsylvania’s mailed-ballot date rule

Another case in front of the Supreme Court involves a dispute that has already tested Pennsylvania’s handling of mailed ballots.

In recent years. Pennsylvania election officials had been discarding thousands of mailed ballots without proper dates on the return envelope. until court rulings blocked the practice. An appeals court last year said the state’s date requirement helps prevent voter fraud only in “exceedingly rare” circumstances—an argument the court found insufficient to justify disqualifying “presumably proper ballots.”.

The Republican Party argues that if a court can declare unconstitutional “perhaps the least burdensome voting rule imaginable,” then “no voting or ballot-casting rule will be safe from open-ended, standardless federal judicial review.”

The original reason for the date requirement began in the 1940s. and was to determine if a ballot that had been received after the election had been sent before the polls closed. Democrats argue that the requirement no longer serves its intended purpose because Pennsylvania now requires absentee ballots to be received by Election Day.

Democratic voters are more likely to vote by mail than Republicans, so Democrats argue they stand to benefit in future elections if the Supreme Court declines to get involved.

The throughline in the arguments is stark: states say their rules are about election integrity and administrative clarity. while challengers say the rules function as barriers—especially for voters who depend on help. language access. or the mail to participate. With decisions potentially coming after the midterm elections. the justices’ choices could determine not just outcomes in one cycle. but the legal boundaries states will test as campaigns approach.

For now, the Supreme Court’s next steps hinge on whether it will accept any of these appeals. The court could begin taking action as early as June 22, and the timing of any acceptance would push arguments into the next term beginning in October, setting up decisions after the midterm elections.

Supreme Court election law Voting Rights Act Arkansas Texas Arizona Pennsylvania voter registration mailed ballots Voting Rights Act Section 2 Voting assistance limited English proficiency National Voter Registration Act