11NOV

Stephen Richer briefs the citizenship-proof issue

2 min read

18:10UTC

Stephen Richer, the Republican former Maricopa County recorder, submitted a Supreme Court brief on 20 October supporting the voting groups on documentary proof of citizenship at registration. He takes no position on the separate 90-day voter-removal question.

← Back to Late ballots flip North Carolina's 3rd Jump to analysis ↓

PoliticsAssessed

Key takeaway

Richer supports the voting groups on registration proof but takes no position on the separate voter-removal question.

Stephen Richer, the Republican former recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, submitted a brief on 20 October supporting the voting groups on documentary proof of citizenship at registration in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota⁠¹⁠². His brief takes no position on the separate 90-day voter-removal question. The US government backed the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the same case earlier this month. Richer asks the Court to leave the registration-proof issue for further consideration in the lower courts.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), a respondent, also asked the Court on 20 October for a share of argument time, matching the government's request on the other side⁠³. The docket shows no ruling on argument time yet.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

the Supreme Court case asks two separate questions. One concerns documentary proof of citizenship at registration. The other concerns removing voters within 90 days of a federal election. Stephen Richer supports the voting groups on the registration-proof question. He takes no position on the 90-day voter-removal question. The Democratic Party wants to argue in court too.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Richer lost the Republican primary for Maricopa County recorder in July 2024 to Justin Heap, after defending the county's 2020 and 2022 counts against claims of fraud. He now writes from outside office and supports the voting groups on the registration-proof issue.

The case matters this autumn because the quiet period is the main legal bar on last-minute removals, and DOJ's other route, demanding removals through SAVE checks, was ruled unlawful on 9 October.

What could happen next?

Consequence
The court's decision on argument time will show whether the DNC joins the hearing alongside the voting groups.
Precedent
A ruling that the quiet period excludes non-citizen removals would let states act on federal lists right up to future elections.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: In 2014, in Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, the 11th Circuit held that Florida's 2012 programme to remove suspected non-citizens inside the 90-day window breached the Act. That ruling treated non-citizen removals as covered by the quiet period.

Counter-parallel: On 30 October 2024, the Supreme Court let Virginia keep removing suspected non-citizens inside the quiet period, in Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights. It gave no reasons, so the question reached the Court again in this case.

Consensus view: The National Voter Registration Act bars any 'systematic' programme to remove voters in the 90 days before a federal election.

The question the Supreme Court left open in footnote 2 of its 25 September SAVE order is whether removing suspected non-citizens counts, since they were never eligible. The United States now argues for the Republicans.

Counter-view: Richer supports the voting groups on documentary proof of citizenship at registration but takes no position on the separate 90-day voter-removal question. He asks the Court to leave the registration-proof issue for further consideration in the lower courts.

Key tension: Whether the Court treats the quiet period as a guard against error, which bites hardest on lists like the DHS ones that have shrunk under checking, or as a rule about eligible voters that never protected non-citizens.

Sources:Supreme Court of the United States·Supreme Court of the United States

Mentions:Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota →Democratic National Committee →Supreme Court of the United States →Maricopa County →Republican National Committee →Mi Familia Vota →Beals v. Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights →Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State →Democratic Party →Virginia →United States →Florida →Arizona →National Voter Registration Act →Stephen Richer →SAVE System →Eleventh Circuit →

First Reported In

Update #21 · Senate GOP's cash lead trails its $20m loan

Supreme Court of the United States· 22 Oct 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

US backs RNC in Mi Familia Vota case

The DNC's argument-time request matches the government's 16 October motion on the other side.

Occurred 16 Oct 2026

Read story →

This Event

Stephen Richer briefs the citizenship-proof issue

Richer asks the court to leave the registration-proof issue for further consideration in the lower courts.

Different Perspectives

University of Florida Election Lab

The lab, run by Michael McDonald, estimates about 124.3 million ballots, a raw midterm record, and turnout of about 49.4% of eligible voters, second to 2018's 50.05%. The raw record reflects population growth more than a record rate, so the late count is working through a near-2018 electorate.

Thune's critics on the right, including Senator Ron Johnson

Ron Johnson backed the failed 31-15 motion to delay Thune's re-election, after activists such as Mike Cernovich blamed the leader for the defeat. Their complaint is that Republicans could have passed the SAVE Act; in January it meets a Democratic Senate instead.

Senator John Thune

Thune was re-elected Senate Republican leader by acclamation on 10 November after a motion to delay failed 31-15. He kept the filibuster that stopped the SAVE Act, the choice his critics on the right blame for the defeat.

House Republicans under Jim Jordan

House Republicans elected Jordan minority leader by 106 votes to 73 over Steve Scalise on 10 November, after Speaker Mike Johnson declined to run. They replaced the leadership that lost the majority, while Senate Republicans kept theirs.

Donald Trump

Trump asked on Truth Social on 9 November whether anybody believed the election "was honest" and blamed the machines, having told The New York Times on polling night he would accept the results. No Republican campaign had sued over a 2026 result by 10 November, so the claim has no case behind it.

Judge David O. Carter

Carter closed the Justice Department's suit over about 20,000 California mail ballots on 10 November after the department withdrew it, writing that the suit "attempted to disrupt an ongoing election". The closure leaves the department with no court order touching a 2026 California ballot.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.