Posted: 10:25 p.m.
Although Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arizona's requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote in national elections, some officials said it is not the end of the argument.
Others believe Arizona is fighting a non-existent problem.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona calls the Court's ruling a step in the right direction.
"We want to make it as easy as possible for people to register to vote," said Alessandra Soler, executive director of Arizona's ACLU.
Soler said Arizona's requirement created a burden for some populations, and added that no non-citizen has ever been prosecuted for voting in Arizona.
In an effort to prevent voter fraud, Arizona's Prop. 200 passed in 2004, requiring proof of citizenship in order to register.
The federal voter registration form is much simpler--requiring only basic information.
The Yuma County recorder's office said they verify voter eligibility if there's a discrepancy; so they do not expect the court's ruling to have a significant impact.
"When there is any type of difficulty, we do take extra steps for verification," said Robyn Stallworth-Pouquette.
Soler said that Arizona's requirement is unnecessary and may actually prevent some U.S. citizens from registering.
"What Arizona did was try to respond to a non-existing problem, and in doing so, ended up disenfranchising thousands and thousands of eligible voters."
A lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) showed that Arizona turned down the voter applications of 31,000 U.S. Citizens because they did not have driver's licenses, passports or other such documentation.
Although the justices made their ruling Monday, some state officials said a provision in the Court's opinion will allow Arizona to keep trying to make the state's requirement valid.
In a statement by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, he calls the Court's ruling an "ultimate path for Arizona victory."
Horne said the next step is to take up the issue with the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), and possibly the high court once again.