re: Kansas, Arizona win proof-of-citizenship requirement in voting suit.

Okay I just read the opinion and the original EAC opinion, and I believe the judge Made a pretty sound ruling (although I certainly see te other side).

To understand why the Arizona case from last term doesn't apply, you have to understand the federal form produced as a result of the Motor Voter Act. On each federal form, they have federal requirements and state specific requirements. The state specific ones are up to the states (they tell the EAC what to put on the ) and the federal specific portion, as relevant here, just makes you declare, under penalty of perjury, that you meet the state requirements.

In the Arizona case from last term, Arizona refused to accept the federal form unless the person submitted proof of citizenship. The SCOTUS said that neither the state specific portion or the federal portion required proof of citizenship, so the state couldn't require proof of citizenship when federal law didn't. But, as the court does so well sometimes, they specifically stated that Arizona was free to petition the EAC to add a requirement for it under the state specific section (which would necessarily impact the federal part because it relies on the state part).

Arizona and Kansas did just that. The EAC said that they didn't hae to grant the request to change the language, the federal judge said they did. So, there are no state decisis issues, as Arizona and Kansas just did exactly what the SCOTUS told them to do. It's now just a matter of statutory interpretation over whether the EAC must honor the state's requests or if it has the discretion to decide what goes in the state specific portion.

Eta: on phone tried to correct typos and autocorrect.