House Concurrent Memorial 2015 is a nonbinding memorial urging the U.S. Congress and the President to change federal voter registration law so that the federal voter registration form includes state-specific instructions, including documentary proof of citizenship requirements. The memorial argues that Arizona and other states should be able to require applicants to provide proof of citizenship on the federal form and that federal law should better reflect state voter qualification rules.
The measure is framed as a request to Congress and the President, not as a direct change to Arizona statutes. It directs the Arizona Secretary of State to transmit the memorial to federal leaders and Arizona’s congressional delegation. Its practical effect is to formally express Arizona’s position that state citizenship-verification requirements are constitutional and should be incorporated into federal registration procedures.
Impact
Because HCM2015 is a concurrent memorial, it does not amend Arizona election law or directly change voter registration procedures in the state. Instead, it seeks to influence federal policy by asking Congress to require the Election Assistance Commission to add state-specific instructions to the federal voter registration form, including proof-of-citizenship documentation. If adopted federally, the requested change could affect how Arizona and other states administer voter registration, particularly for applicants using the federal form, and could alter the balance between federal registration uniformity and state qualification requirements.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong support among its sponsors and majority votes in both chambers, passing the House 32-26 and the Senate 17-11 after clearing committee votes. The memorial’s language reflects a clear pro-proof-of-citizenship, election-integrity position and a critical view of federal voter registration rules and the Inter Tribal Council decision. The recorded votes suggest the issue was partisan and closely divided, but ultimately favored by the legislative majorities.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether states should be allowed to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. Supporters argue that states have constitutional authority to set voter qualifications and need federal forms to reflect those requirements; they also contend the current system undermines election integrity. Opponents, as reflected by the close committee and floor votes, likely object to adding barriers to registration, to the memorial’s criticism of federal law and court precedent, or to the claim that federal requirements improperly limit state authority. The dispute centers on federal versus state control over voter registration and the evidentiary burden placed on applicants.
Relating to requiring a person to submit proof of citizenship to register to vote, including the eligibility of certain voters to vote a limited federal ballot if the voter cannot supply the required proof and the procedures for the counting of those ballots; creating criminal offenses.