This week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) made a bold move, asking the Supreme Court to step in and block 41,000 registered voters from casting ballots in November’s presidential election. Why? Because apparently, some folks think proof of U.S. citizenship is optional when it comes to participating in the most important election in the country.

Now, let’s talk about Arizona—a state that’s as red as the sunsets over the Grand Canyon, except when it’s barely blue, like in 2020 when Biden won by a hair-thin margin of 10,457 votes. Clearly, the RNC isn’t about to let history repeat itself without a fight. So, they filed their case, RNC v. Mi Familia Vota, because they actually believe elections should be for citizens, not just anyone who happens to register.

This isn’t just some last-minute stunt, either. The RNC had already filed an emergency application on August 8, and it’s currently waiting for Justice Elena Kagan to decide whether the rule of law matters more than some nonprofit’s feelings.

The heart of this case? Arizona’s new voter registration laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, which were passed in 2022 to, you know, ensure that people who vote are actually eligible to do so. The laws require proof of citizenship—yes, a birth certificate might be involved—and mandate that counties verify this information and clean up the voter rolls.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton hit the brakes on enforcing these requirements on May 2, leaning on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and an old state court ruling to justify keeping the status quo. Unsurprisingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bolton’s decision in a 2-1 vote on August 1. However, the RNC isn’t buying the idea that federal laws should steamroll over Arizona’s right to safeguard its elections.

In their August 19 filing, the RNC took aim at the other side’s reliance on the Purcell Principle, a doctrine that is meant to prevent changes to election rules close to an election in order to avoid confusion. But here’s the thing: applying this principle now would just handcuff state officials from enforcing the law, leading to even more chaos and confusion.

The RNC warned that if this skewed version of the Purcell Principle stands, it could open the door for federal courts to stick their noses into state election laws even more than they already do. Let’s be real—this is about stopping federal overreach in its tracks.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, however, would rather the Supreme Court ignore all of that and reject the RNC’s request. In his August 16 brief, he stressed how close the election is and argued that making these necessary changes now would somehow throw the entire process into disarray.

And, of course, the U.S. Department of Justice, always ready to back up a federal power grab, chimed in through Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. She argued on August 16 that the NVRA overrides Arizona’s laws, so the RNC’s effort is doomed from the start.

So, when will the Supreme Court finally rule on whether it’s okay to actually enforce voter eligibility laws? The clock’s ticking, but one thing’s clear: the RNC isn’t about to let the integrity of this election slip through their fingers without a fight.

Update: The Supreme Court rejected the emergency order to block the 41,000 voters. However, they did okay a part of the law that would allow for proof of citizenship to be enforced. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said, “We respect the Court’s decision and will implement these changes while continuing to protect voter access and make a voting simple process.”