Arizona Secretary of State

Michele Reagan should look to Montana’s ‘dark money’ disclosure law

by

Last year when Secretary of State Michele Reagan was in the Senate and running for higher office, she was pushing her so-called “dark money” disclosure bill. I explained at the time that Sen. Michele Reagan’s dark money disclosure bill will accomplish little:

MicheleReaganSen. Reagan’s bill “to include the names of the three largest contributors” will only result, at best, in the disclosure of “Kochtopus” alphabet soup 501(c) organizations — Russian nesting dolls — set up to hide the true identity of the actual contributors, who are millionaire and billionaire plutocrats. It is not a serious attempt to regulate the dark money organizations corrupting our elections. It is pure posturing by her for her campaign to become Arizona’s next Secretary of State. We can do better than Michele Reagan, the co-author of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305.

Nevertheless, opinion makers like The Arizona Republic’s Laurie Roberts — whom I believe is genuinely concerned about the corrupting influence of “dark money” in Arizona politics — truly madly deeply wanted to believe that Michele Reagan was also genuinely concerned about the corrupting influence of “dark money” in Arizona politics. Like Peter Pan, Ms. Roberts assured readers “If you believe, clap your hands; don’t let [“dark money” regulation] die.”

Only since her election as Secretary of State, Michele Reagan has failed and/or refused to take any action against “dark money” groups. Quite the opposite, she even intervened on behalf of one “dark money” group in one lawsuit. Even Peter Pan Laurie Roberts is now disillusioned. Has Michele Reagan gone over to Arizona’s dark side? Hindsight is 20/20. The trick is knowing when you are being played, and not encouraging others to fall for it.

Read more

The public wants the influence of money out of politics, but is cynical that anything can be done about it

by

The New York Times this week reports a new Poll Shows Americans Favor an Overhaul of Campaign Financing:

MoneySpeechAmericans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by “super PACs” and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

And by a significant margin, they reject the argument that underpins close to four decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance: that political money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Even self-identified Republicans are evenly split on the question.

Read more

Anti-immigrant groups file amicus briefs in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission

by

At the end of March I posted that Kobach v. US Election Assistance Commission appealed to U.S. Supreme Court:

Last November, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down proof-of-citizenship requirement for National Voter Registration Form:

NoVoteA panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, in a unanimous decision, struck down Arizona’s Prop. 200 (2004) proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and a similar provision of Kansas law in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (Nos. 14-3062 and 14-3072). Specifically, this case concerns whether Arizona and Kansas have to accept the federal National Voter Registration Form without additional proof of citizenship. The Arizona Voter Registration Form proof-of-citizenship requirement has previously been upheld by the Courts.

Read the Opinion Here (.pdf).

[UPDATE: The Federal Voter Registration Form requires the voter to swear/affirm that they are a U.S. citizen and that they meet the eligibility requirements of their state “under penalty of perjury. If I have provided false information, I may be fined, imprisoned or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”]

The Wichita Eagle reports, Kris Kobach asks U.S. Supreme Court to restore his proof-of-citizenship law:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision and restore a state law he wrote requiring proof-of-citizenship documents to register to vote.

Kobach wants the Supreme Court to undo the November decision by the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, in a case pitting Kansas and Arizona against the federal Election Assistance Commission and a bevy of voting rights groups.

This case was docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24.  Docket for 14-1164. (h/t SCOTUSblog).

Read more

Time for another referendum (citizens veto) of GOP voter suppression – HB 2407

by

ArizonaIn 2013, Arizonans rose up in righteous indignation against the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and qualified a citizens referendum (citizens veto) for the 2014 ballot. In 2014, Tea-Publicans repealed HB 2305 before voters could have the opportunity to vote on it and to make the rejection of the legislature’s action permanent under the Voter protection Act, itself a form of voter suppression.

In 2015, Tea-Publicans returned with a piecemeal attempt to enact HB 2305 as a package of separate bills to make it harder for the citizens of Arizona to pursue a citizens referendum of their voter suppression efforts. Some of those bills didn’t make it (they will be back next year) and others did.

One GOP Voter Suppression bill that passed and that has now been signed by Gov. Doug Ducey is HB 2407 (.pdf), which now makes it much more difficult and expensive for Arizona citizens to exercise their constitutional right to citizens initiatives, referendums and recall. Tea-Publicans are now imposing the “strict compliance” with statutory requirements for referendums to initiatives and recalls as well.

What this means is that petitions can be disqualified for hyper-technical deficiencies such as typographical errors, typeset, line spacing and margins, a missing serial number, incomplete voter information (such as date of signature), an error in the affidavit of signature gatherer or notary public, etc. Despite your best good faith efforts to comply with all the rules, the Secretary of State is now empowered to disqualify petition sheets for such hyper-technical deficiencies.

Read more

Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

by

Last November, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down proof-of-citizenship requirement for National Voter Registration Form:

NoVoteA panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, in a unanimous decision, struck down Arizona’s Prop. 200 (2004) proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and a similar provision of Kansas law in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (Nos. 14-3062 and 14-3072). Specifically, this case concerns whether Arizona and Kansas have to accept the federal National Voter Registration Form without additional proof of citizenship. The Arizona Voter Registration Form proof-of-citizenship requirement has previously been upheld by the Courts.

Read the Opinion Here (.pdf).

* * *

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Kansas cannot require proof-of-citizenship documents — almost always a birth certificate or passport — from prospective voters who register using a federal voter registration form. The court also said that a federal agency doesn’t have to alter the [federal] form to fit Kansas requirements.

Arizona has a similar proof-of-citzenship requirement, and Kobach argued the case on behalf of both states in conjunction with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

I commented at the time, “Justice Antonin Scalia, who suggested this convoluted legal process to Kansas and Arizona in his earlier Supreme Court opinion, is salivating at the prospect of judicially rewriting the federal law in favor of “states’ rights” when this case winds its way back to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a temporary victory, I fear.”

We are about to find out. The Wichita Eagle reports, Kris Kobach asks U.S. Supreme Court to restore his proof-of-citizenship law:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision and restore a state law he wrote requiring proof-of-citizenship documents to register to vote.

Kobach wants the Supreme Court to undo the November decision by the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, in a case pitting Kansas and Arizona against the federal Election Assistance Commission and a bevy of voting rights groups.

The appeals court ruled that the states could not require document citizenship proof from prospective voters who register using a federal form that doesn’t demand it – and that the commission doesn’t have to alter the federal registration form to comply with the states’ demands.

Kobach argues Supreme Court guidance is needed because the case is of paramount national importance.

Read more