The Associated Press reports, Arizona will require voters to prove citizenship, residency:

Arizona’s Republican governor on Wednesday signed a bill requiring voters to prove their citizenship to vote in a presidential election, drawing fierce opposition from voting rights advocates who say it risks affecting some 200,000 people.

Advertisement

The Legislature’s own lawyers say much of the measure is unconstitutional, directly contradicts a recent Supreme Court decision and is likely to be thrown out in court. Still, voting rights advocates worry the bill is an attempt to get back in front of the now more conservative Supreme Court.

UPDATE:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1509542362418139145?cxt=HHwWksCy1fux_PIpAAAA

[Fake GQP elector under imvestigation by the DOJ for election fraud] Rep. Jake Hoffman, who developed the bill along with the conservative [Confederate] Heritage Foundation, said the measure is about eliminating opportunities for fraud, though cases of noncitizens voting are extremely rare.

Note: The conservative [Confederate] Heritage Foundation maintains what they assert is a voter fraud data base. They document only 26 cases in Arizona since 2009 – and only one conviction in 2020, and one conviction in 2022. So the MAGA/QAnon Big Lie of massive voter fraud in 2020 has resulted in exactly two cases in Arizona, even with a partisan hack Republican attormey general. This think tank bill is a GQP Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression bill based upon the GQP’s longstanding “voter fraud” fraud and Trump’s Big Lie.

The precise impact is a matter of dispute. Ducey, Hoffman and other supporters say it affects only the roughly 31,500 voters who have not shown proof of citizenship. Voting advocates say it’s vague and could go much farther, affecting hundreds of thousands of people who haven’t recently updated their voter registration or driver’s license.

“Arizona’s way out on a limb here,” said Jon Sherman, litigation director for the Fair Elections Center. “The provisions in this bill are not really found anywhere in the country.”

Arizona is the only state that requires voters to prove their citizenship when they register, a provision adopted in a 2004 ballot measure known as Proposition 200. Voters can demonstrate citizenship by providing a driver’s license or tribal ID number, or they can attach a copy of a birth certificate, passport or naturalization documents. Voters already registered at the time were grandfathered in.

In a challenge to Proposition 200, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that Arizona can adopt its own eligibility criteria for state elections but must accept a federal voter registration form for federal elections. The federal form requires voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens, but unlike the state form, it does not require them to provide documentary proof. The state has tried unsuccessfully to get the federal form changed.

The ruling created a class of voters who can vote only for president, U.S. House and U.S. Senate known as “federal only voters.” There are 31,500 people currently registered that way, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

There is no evidence that the existence of federal only voters has allowed noncitizens to illegally vote, but Republican skeptics have nonetheless worked aggressively to crack down [and pursue the GQP’s “voter fraud” fraud and Trump’s Big Lie to undermine confidence in our elections.]

The bill would prohibit federal-only voters from voting by mail or voting for president. It would require state election officials to cross check registration information with various government databases.

The bill also requires people to include proof of their address with new voter registrations. Election officials say that’s complicated and unnecessary because addresses are verified at the time of voting. Voting rights advocates say it will make registration drives much more complicated, especially among people who don’t have an Arizona driver’s license or state ID with an up-to-date address, such as college students, Native Americans and seniors who no longer drive.

In a further complication, the bill would take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which is likely to fall between the primary and general elections. Affected voters could vote legally in the Aug. 2 primary, would get notified their registration was at risk of cancellation if they didn’t prove their citizenship, and they’d have until Oct. 11 to fix the issue or miss their chance to vote in the general election.

Republican supporters say they plan to pass another bill delaying the start until after the 2022 election, but nothing has yet been introduced.

Sam Almy, a data analyst who consults for Democratic campaigns, said his analysis of voter registration records found just under 220,000 voters who have not updated their registration since 2004, when Proposition 200 passed. The group skews heavily toward registered Republicans, older people and those who consistently vote.

Of those affected, 71% have voted in all of the last three general elections. Forty-five percent are registered Republicans, 36% are Democrats and the rest are independents. Half are at least 65 years old and nearly 90% are at least 50.

The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division has verified that applicants for driver’s licenses and state identification cards are legally in the United States since 1996 but does not verify that they’re citizens, said Bill Lamoreaux, an agency spokesman. There are about 192,000 people with a state license or ID issued before 1996, he said.

I am am one of those longstanding residents who has had a drivers license and voter registration for some 45 years or more. I am in the affected class of longtime Arizona voters subjected to this GQP Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression.

Governor Ducey will rightfully be condemned for signing this GQP Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression bill, but he is a lameduck who is thankfully leaving office in January. Voters cannot hold his sorry ass accountable.

But voters can hold the MAGA/QAnon Republican legislators who voted for this GQP Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression bill based upon their longstanding “voter fraud” fraud and Trump’s Big Lie to undermine confidence in our elections. Kick them all out of office.

House Vote on HB 2492

Senate Vote on HB 2492

UPDATE: Marc E. Elias’ team of lawyers just won a huge victory in Florida today, with the federal district court striking down Forida’s new Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression law.

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1509556947946819596?cxt=HHwWmMC-qfqCg_MpAAAA

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1509561832461197316?cxt=HHwWiICz5aKfhfMpAAAA

I would strongly urge the lawyers for Mi Familia Vote in the Arizona lawsuit filed today to seek Section 3 “bail in” under the Voting Rights Act to put Arizona under 10 years of DOJ preclearance as well, for all of the Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression laws enacted by Arizona since the Supreme Court’s radical decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

“Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides a seldom-used path to federal preclearance of changes to state and local voting practices. It allows a federal judge, upon finding that a jurisdic­tion violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment, to require that jurisdiction to submit for preapproval any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.” Originally intended to supplement the expansive Section 5 pre­clearance regime, Section 3 was suddenly thrust into prominence by the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder.” MORE THAN “RARELY USED”: A POST–SHELBY JUDICIAL STANDARD FOR SECTION 3 PRECLEARANCE.

Election law expert Rick Hasen reports, Breaking: Federal District Court Strikes Down Restrictive Florida Voting Rules, Imposes Requirement That Florida Submit Certain Voting Changes to Court for Preclearance Under Section 3(c) of Voting Rights Act Upon Finding of Intentional Discrimination:

Quite a blockbuster ruling from the federal district court. The court found that in enacting certain election laws limiting registration outreach and the use of drop boxes, Florida violated the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that Florida acted intentionally discriminating against the state’s black voters. And although the parties hardly briefed it, the Court imposed a very strong remedy of requiring that certain changes in voting rules in Florida be precleared before the court for a period of 10 years under section 3c of the Voting Rights Act.

This is a huge deal, and the district court’s analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Indeed, the district court seems to signal that very early in the case that the appellate courts have stopped meaningfully protecting minority voting rights:

In so ruling, this Court recognizes that the right to vote, and the VRA particularly, are under siege. See, e.g., Ark. State Conf. NAACP v. Ark. Bd. of Apportionment, No. 4:21-cv-01239-LPR, 2022 WL 496908, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 17, 2022) (dismissing a “strong merits case” that Arkansas had, to the detriment of Black voters, racially gerrymandered seats in the Arkansas House of Representatives under the theory that no private right of action is available under section 2 of the VRA); Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022) (staying, without explanation, order enjoining racially gerrymandered congressional maps); Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2351 (2021) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (“Today, the Court undermines Section 2 [of the VRA] and the right it provides.”); Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (gutting the VRA’s preclearance regime).

Federal courts must not lose sight of the spirit that spurred the VRA’s passage. In June 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to the New York Amsterdam News urging Congress to pass the VRA. In it, he wrote that “to deny a person the right to exercise his political freedom at the polls is no less a dastardly act as to deny a Christian the right to petition God in prayer.” Martin Luther King Jr., Let My People Vote, The Atlantic, https://tinyurl.com/2sfx63u4 (last visited Mar. 22, 2022). Federal courts would not countenance a law denying Christians their sacred right to prayer, and they should not countenance a law denying Floridians their sacred right to vote.




Advertisement