I'm not sure what's worse, that it's even a close call for the Supreme Court to rule that non-citizens should be forbidden from voting in U.S. elections or that the division was between the most conservative males and all the women on the court. What's that all about? 

In an unsigned order, the nation's highest court ruled on Thursday afternoon that Arizona may ask voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens before they can cast a vote. Arizona Republicans brought the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court after a lower court ruled that it was somehow unconstitutional to ask people in a border state overrun by Joe Biden's army of illegal aliens that it's illegal to ask for voter ID. 

The court, however, turned down a request to reinstate another part of the law that would prevent people from voting who had already used a standard federal form to register to vote. 

The bill requiring citizen-only voting was signed into law by then-Gov. Doug Ducey last year to stop illegal aliens from being registered to vote — which is happening not only in the border state but all over the country. 

Related: NOW They Tell Us: State-Run Media Admits Kamala Insiders Lied All Along About Joe's Dementia

Of course, Attorney Marc Elias and Hillary's other flying monkeys in the leftist lawfare army immediately challenged the law to the U.S. District Court and Bill Clinton appointee, Judge Susan Bolton. How tidy. You won't be surprised to learn that Bolton blocked the law from taking effect in a September ruling. The RNC, however, appealed to the Supreme Court to get a ruling before the 2024 election and the drop-dead deadline of Aug. 22. That's when the ballots were to be sent to the printer. 

On Thursday, at practically the 59th minute of the 11th hour, Justice Elena Kagan issued the ruling allowing at least part of the law to go into effect. 

Elias and his army of lawfare agents argued that "The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to 'accept and use' a standard form to register voters for federal elections," SCOTUSblog explains.

"That federal form requires would-be voters to swear, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens, but they are not required to provide proof of citizenship," which, of course, means nothing when people who are willing to break the law to come to this country and the left's favorite and well-funded NGOs that would be more than happy to sign them up to vote and use the NGO or someone other friends' addresses to receive the ballots embrace them. 

There. I said it.

Now, the law Ducey signed into law is H.B. 2492. What this did was to attempt to verify U.S. citizenship by election officials. If the applicant couldn't verify citizenship, he or she was required to provide proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections or by mail. Also, as SCOTUSblog explains, a separate provision "requires anyone who registers using Arizona’s state form to submit proof of citizenship" (emphasis added). Soon thereafter, Elias and the Democrats, but I repeat myself, "argued that the NVRA supersedes Arizona’s requirement to submit proof of citizenship to vote for president or by mail."

Multiple layers of courts were involved in the court battles, which ended on Thursday after an emergency appeal to the highest court. 

Elias was joined by multiple grievance groups such as "Mi Familia Vota, Living United for Change in Arizona, the national and state Democratic Party," the Arizona Republic reported.

Those who don't want illegal aliens to vote in elections had little confidence that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes would robustly defend the state's position in court, so intervenors were allowed to file to advocate for Arizonans (see California Attorney General Kamala Harris for examples of working against the peoples' wishes for how this works). 

The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Sam Alito, and Clarence Thomas finding the full law to be constitutional, while Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Kentanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett said they would have thrown out the entire case.