A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a state mandate for people to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.
In a divided decision, the majority of the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the requirement, approved by Arizona voters in 2004, runs afoul of the federal National Voter Registration Act. That law spells out what states can and cannot require to vote in federal elections.
Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing the majority decision, specifically concluded that the requirement to produce one of a list of specified documents proving citizenship is on that list of what is not allowed.
That conclusion drew derision from Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees elections and who said the proof is necessary to protect the integrity of elections.
"If you buy that argument, then I assume they are going to let us go through airports signing a certificate saying that 'I am not a terrorist, I promise I don't have any explosives in my underwear,' '' Bennett said. He vowed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the 2004 measure, said the ruling "flies in the face of common sense.''
"It should go without saying that states have the right to ensure that only citizens vote,'' he said.
Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups that sued, said there are parallels between this case and the more recent challenge to the state's new immigration law. In both cases, she said, judges have struck down efforts by Arizona to usurp federal authority.
"What the federal courts have done consistently now, recently, is told Arizona that these schemes that it's coming up with, whether it's voter registration schemes or whether they're immigrant regulation schemes, are outside the bounds, and that Arizona has to comply with the superseding federal law,'' she said.
Tuesday's decision comes less than a week before the 9th Circuit hears arguments about whether a federal judge correctly enjoined the state from enforcing that new immigration law. And in December the U.S. Supreme Court will review a different Arizona law allowing the state to suspend or revoke the business licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
Nothing in the decision will affect Tuesday's election, as the deadline to register to vote was Oct. 4.
The new ruling split the three-judge panel.
Siding with Ikuta was retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was sitting in as an acting appellate judge. Judge Alex Kozinski dissented, arguing that the full 9th Circuit reached a different conclusion three years ago.
But Ikuta said that 2007 ruling "was rooted in a fundamental misreading of the statute.'' She said it was based on the premise that Arizona could either accept the federal registration form created under the NVRA, which does not require proof of citizenship, or develop its own.
"The NVRA commands without exception that states 'shall' accept and use the federal form,'' Ikuta wrote. "And if they develop their own form, it can only be used 'in addition to' accepting and using the federal form.''
While striking down the proof-of-citizenship requirement, the court let stand the other key provision of the law which require people to provide identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.
The registration and voter ID requirements were part of a larger measure approved in 2004 which bars those not in this country legally from getting certain benefits. But it also included the changes in voting laws that supporters said were necessary to ensure that only those legally entitled to vote will affect the outcome of elections.
Various groups representing Hispanics and Native Americans sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination. But U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, in a 2008 ruling, rejected the challenges.
She said while requiring proof of citizenship makes the process more cumbersome, it has not prevented most people from completing the process. She also said the inconvenience of having to gather the required documents "does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.''
Ikuta, in Tuesday's ruling, said the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government control over voting procedures for national elections and lets Congress supersede any state election laws. She said Congress specifically approved the NVRA to preclude "discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures'' which can affect voter participation.
That law mandated creation of a federal voter registration form which may require "only such identifying information ... as is necessary to enable the appropriate state election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.''
It also requires that those attempting to register be informed of all requirements, including citizenship; new voters must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet the conditions.
But Ikuta noted the law says the form "may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,'' language she said precludes proof of citizenship.
Technically speaking, the ruling covers only registration to vote in federal elections. But Arizona has a single registration process to vote for not only the president and members of Congress but also the governor, legislators and other state and local officials.
Bennett said that would make it theoretically possible for the state to keep the citizenship requirement for those state and local elections if the Supreme Court does not overturn this ruling. But Perales said any effort by Arizona to create a state-only registration process with a proof-of-citizenship requirement could run afoul of other federal laws which prohibit states like Arizona, with a history of discrimination, from altering procedures in any way that would impair minority voting.
Pearce criticized "activist judges ignoring the rule of law. And he singled out O'Connor, an Arizona native, for special criticism.
"It is particularly disturbing that retired Justice O'Connor, who seems more and more like a politician these days, signed onto a decision that could undermine the integrity of our elections,'' he said.
rrjenn posted at 11:24 am on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
Sure, why make certain that people voting are actually citizens of our country. Next they should send out a 100 million absentee ballots to Mexico so they can vote here too. After all, who do we think we are thinking America belongs to Americans.
abimopectore posted at 12:00 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
Read the analysis and you'll see why the folks that are writing these law(s) in Arizona really do need to get a legal education. The issue is much more nuanced and there's plenty of precedent to establish the position that this appellate panel took. If folks were motivated by truly greater concerns than just superficially misplaced passionate outbursts, they would think these things through before attempting to write legislation that runs counter to the U.S. Constitution, less make silly comments that are way out there. Arizona, of all states, doesn't need to worry about non-citizens voting since it's pretty clear by the folks they elect, they're not voting for the types that non-citizens would cast their ballots for ; ). Here's the decision link for those who wish to enlighten themselves:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/10/26/08-17094.pdf
chick posted at 12:25 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
I have to provide more information for my kid to do little league. If the Federal Govt. has absconded from their responsibility, by not enforcing immigration laws and by not paying the bills that we the taxpayers are stuck with for that lack of enforcement, one can argue that the Fed Govt. has passed the buck to the states.
AZMomma posted at 12:38 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
If this is the case, then it is time for both the Fed and individual States to REQUIRE some verifiable proof of Voter Eligibility.
After all, a US Citizen, convicted of a felony has their voting rights taken from them.
Should an illegal alien get more consideration?
[sad]
Phaedrus posted at 6:17 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
@abimopectore; I don't see how ensuring that registered voters are legal citizens is counter to the US Constitution. It's not discriminatory in any way to ask EVERYONE who is registering to vote to provide a legal document of their legal citizenship status. It's no harder for a formerly Mexican national who has recently become a US citizen to obtain documents demonstrating this than it is for me. It cuts down on voter fraud, plain and simple. If a person has no qualms about entering this country by bypassing all legal avenues, I can't see how they'd have an issue with registering to vote, even if they're liable for perjury. It's not much of a deterrent to someone who's already violated federal laws, is it?
As far as the political climate in Arizona, you must have missed the fact that this law being repealed may have single-handedly let Grijalva keep his seat. As far as I'm concerned he should have been booted the moment he thought it would be appropriate to initiate and support an economic boycott during an already difficult time for the constituents he was supposed to represent.
TruthSeeker posted at 7:55 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
There are several states that have propositions on the ballot that will allow non-citizens to vote in elections. This would mean that anyone living here could vote, including illegal aliens, citizens of Mexico, citizens of Canada, citizens of Ukraine, Poland, France, Italy, etc. As long as you have a residence here, whether permanent or temporary or legal or illegal, you will be allowed to vote. Kind of diminishes the honor of being or becoming a citizen, doesn't it? Does that mean we get reciprocity in their countries?
Phaedrus posted at 8:00 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
One other thing, I (admittedly) skimmed through the link you provided for the opinion of the court, and read a little more in depth on the NVRA which the majority based it's decision. From my reading (I'm sure it's biased, somehow), the states are responsible for ensuring a registrant's eligibility to vote. (Sec. 1973gg-3). Specifically it says that they may only ask for the minimum information to determine eligibility and to prevent duplicate voter registration. In a state where IDs are forged on a regular basis so illegal immigrants can get jobs, I can see the state reasonably asking for proof of citizenship as the minimum information to ensure voter eligibility.It's addressed again further into the document, and I didn't see anything that prohibited asking for specific documents. I feel that a little inconvenience is worth maintaining the integrity of the process that elects the officials that choose the political direction of this country and state, and it's people. I feel racist for even thinking this (which frustrates me) but why is this a hispanic issue? Prop 200 didn't ask latino voters to do anything different than caucasian or african american, or any other voters, and yet it seems that the plantiffs, with the exception of five entities, were hispanic in nature. The only hispanic aspect of this issue is the overwhelming amount of people in this country illegally. They don't have a right to vote. Ensuring citizenship of this state's voter's shouldn't be illegal. Plain and simple.
Brittanicus posted at 8:34 pm on Tue, Oct 26, 2010.
Lets do a newly organized Black Panther threatening stance outside polling stations, as the Obama's Liberal Department of Justice didn't even bother to prosecute--even though they were brandishing clubs?
So what do you expect with the 9 th District court? There a bunch of ultra Liberal boot-licker's from the Clinton era. God help this country if the left crazies get a foothold into our young kids, like the Tides foundation and George Soros to turn this America in to an socialist extremist society. We are already having our free Speech eroded away, by this crank "politically Correct" mantra. Thank heavens for the Tea Party of which I am a member, which is propagating to bring integrity to the voting system. I hope Jan Brewer and State Senator Peirce follows through and appeals it, eventually reaching SCOTUS. What we need is a non-counterfeit pic ID so that illegal aliens cannot vote in any election, as they are stealing our most sacred right from citizens and naturalized citizens. It’s happened many times before with the ultra Liberal media hiding it away from the public eye. Just as they urinate on the truth and use rhetoric and downright lies to mislead the American population.
Than as for the insidious, 9th federal circuit court? It's in the Liberal stronghold of San Francisco, a well branded Sanctuary City. This is a State where illegal alien gang members executed a father and two children, with a AK47 and never even faced the death penalty, thanks to Liberal prosecutors in the city. Just Google-Yahoo or your favorite search engine and enter the keywords--Voter Fraud. It’s already begun in Houston, Texas where thousands of registrations have been rejected. Doesn't this all mirror--the ACORN CONSPIRACY. Then just today in Clarke County, Nevada voters became very suspicious of already check- marked Senator Harry Reid, when their intent was to vote for Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle? You can go back years using your browser news and check out the archives on--Voter Fraud. I repeat, the liberal editors when scorning my commentary, that there is no voter fraud.
Mark my words, by the end of this election, illegal aliens will be checking senator Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and even Jerry Brown? The new administration better take note on the public's fury of any Liberal impersonating a Dem delivering AMNESTY, to the 13 to 20 million illegal foreigners over here is--dead meat. They have been brain-washed to believe that this seventh AMNESTY isn't going to cost the taxpayers--ANYTHING. But ask Robert Rector, Chief analyst at the Heritage Foundation that taxes will go up, to pay the 2.6 TRILLION dollar bill. Slowly this federal government is growing and spreading and we can only hope that the Tea Party candidates will begin reduction in this monstrosity. At least the 9th circuit has determined that this economic-stressed State of Arizona has the judicial right to request eligible forms of ID.
That doesn't mean a utility bill, but a driver’s license or some other government picture ID that can be verified? During the 1986 Amnesty for the Guest workers and illegal entrants into America, a proffered a simple simple utility bill that was enough for the US government as proof of working here for a year. Illegal aliens were churning out apartment leases and selling them, to just about anybody. It was a huge fraud on the American public and a clever ruse by both political parties. Let’s face it, if illegal aliens can use bogus Social Security numbers and locate deceased personal information from an obituary in a local newspaper, so to masquerade as that person.
forkedlift1 posted at 2:09 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Thanks, ambimopectore, or providing the link to that analysis, which I have yet to read.
Meanwhile, here are excerpts from the Channel 12 News report about the case.
ATTORNEY DAVID BODNEY: You've got a federal law that creates a federal form which states are bound to accept and use. And the State of Arizona took the position that it could use it by engrafting on this federal form a requirement that persons produce proof of citizenship before the state would accept the federal form.
COMMENTATOR: Late today Senator Russell Pearce, the father of Prop. 200, tore into Justice O'Connor and called for ethics charges against her.
SEN. RUSSELL PEARCE: Judge O'Connor apparently has no respect for the rule of law or the people of Arizona. She seems more and more like a politician these days.
____________
How does that grab you: der Reichfuhrer, now sounding more like Archie Bunker, claiming that Justice O'Connor, a role model of integrity, long time U.S. Supreme Court Justice and pride of Arizona, has "no respect for the rule of law"?
commonsense posted at 1:42 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
So, if I tell the registrar of voters that I am a US citizen----they should just take my word for it!!!!!!! No one checks??????? If anyone questions me it is illegal racial discrimination?
So......... I should be able to go into any bank and tell them that I want to take $10,000 out of my account-------they should just believe that I have an account and at least $10,000 to take out. I shouldn't have to show any proof---they should just believe me....otherwise it's discrimination against poor people?????
Yeah right!!!! They bleed my paycheck dry with all these taxes, now my vote is null and void.
forkedlift1 posted at 5:34 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Your vote is null and void? Where do you get that? You must not have understood the information conveyed in the article.
Arizona is again out-of-synch with the rest of the country and again doing things that are in non-compliance with the intent of Congress and the law.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 created a standard federal registration form in an effort to INCREASE voter registration in federal elections. The federal registration form requires applicants to sign the form and ATTEST TO THEIR CITIZENSHIP STATUS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
You think an undocumented immigrant or a legal resident with a green card (for example the Americanized spouse of a U.S. citizen whose native country doesn't allow for dual citizenships) wants to take that chance? And risk not only severe penalties but deportation? Not hardly.
Requiring new residents, transplants from other states and new legal immigrants to jump through discouraging and cumbersome hoops defeats that purpose. Additionally, prior to this Arizona law being enacted in 2004, no evidence of voter fraud in Arizona could be cited.
Today's Arizona Republic gives just a couple of examples of how lawful citizens are deterred from their lawful right to vote in our elections.
Arizona's law particularly affected newly naturalized U.S. citizens whose voter registrations were rejected because they received their driver's licenses when they were green-card holders. They would provide their license numbers, but they were still coded as non-citizens through the Arizona Dept of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division.
When new citizens' and new Arizona residents' registrations are rejected, they have to take extra steps to photo copy their
birth certificates or naturalization forms, and people might give up trying to register.
Arizona isn't a stranger to devious tactics to deter voter registrations and voting by certain segments of our population.
Since the 1960's Arizona, along with some states in the deep south and a few pinpointed localities across the country, has had to submit and have approved by the U.S. Dept of Justice all of its proposed elections.
Rich posted at 7:39 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
The way in which to attack and eventually control a society is to attack and change the basic contract that holds it together. In our case the Constitution. When a law is found to be a violation of the Constitution, a responsible voter looks at the people who passed that law and removes them from public life. Only ideologues allow them to continue. The problem is that, if you allow them to continue, you are challenging your society and way of life. Whereas changing a few Senators and Representatives does very little, if anything, to change society, allowing people to continually challenge it's basic principles is deadly to it.
Poorman posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.
The 9th circuit court of appeals sucks,and always has,is there anyway AZ.can get transfered to another District? Seems to me,years ago something like that was being looked at.I wonder what became of it. The 9th for the most part over the years seems to always rule against our state no matter what the issue.Even back to the good ole Carl Mucekee days.
forkedlift1 posted at 11:22 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.
Poorman, you obviously haven' t kept up. Even though there are some contradictions in the laws, the full 9th Circuit ruled unanimously to uphold Arizona's employer's sanction law. That is the case that will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 8th. Try understanding a particular legal issue in dispute instead of making generalizations.
Never heard of Carl Mucekee. Unless you have the spelling wrong, he couldn't have been a prominent person. I tried Googling the name and came up with nothing.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:05 pm on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.
Rich,
Your comment is excellent, a forewarning that all voters of Russell Pearce's District 18 should heed.
Yesterday, by sheer happenstance (I wasn't even looking) I ran across a couple articles from February 2001 -- over NINE AND A HALF YEARS AGO -- concerning something Pearce, then a member of the house, tried to pull a couple of times -- tampering with the ADOT budget that could have cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars and really fattened the pocketbooks of developers.
First was a Feb. 18, 2001 Tribune letter to the editor from Pearce -- "Freeway bill guarded rights of individuals" -- attempting to justify his proposed windfall for developers and wrongfully claiming that private property rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. (Remember Pearce always claims to be an expert in the Constitution.)
A Tribune letter to the editor on Feb. 23, 2001 "Pearce promotes license for the rich" from Mary Melcher pointed to Pearce's misinterpretation of the Constitution and punched holes in all of Pearce's claims.
But considering what Pearce has done to damage our state in the last couple of years, the real kicker is the Feb. 22, 2001 Tribune editorial, "Colleagues should rein in Pearce."
Here is the substance of that editorial from nine and a half years ago.
"Legislative leaders ought to rap Rep. Russell Pearce's knuckles and then put him on a very short leash. No telling what kind of mischief this disgruntled motor vehicle division official will concoct if given the chance.
Pearce, a Mesa Republican who heads a key legislative subcommittee already has tried to slip a footnote into the Arizona Department of Transportation's budget that could have cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars and delayed completion of the freeway system by several years. Colleagues yanked it out after East Valley mayors and the Tribune screamed bloody murder.
Now he and accomplice Rep. Dean Martin, a Phoenix Republican, are trying to use $50 million from the ADOT budget for other priorities that have yet to be revealed. Not to worry, they say, ADOT can just borrow more money to keep freeway construction on schedule.
Wrong, say ADOT Director Mary Peters and State Treasurer Carol Springer. With the state's half-cent sales tax due to expire in a few years, there's no money on the horizon to pay back any additional ADOT debt.
Pearce's tampering with the ADOT budget stinks to high heaven, and legislators need to put a stop to it if he persists. Although Pearce claims his motives are pure, he's made no secret of his ill will toward Gov. Hull's administration after he was fired in 1999 as head of the Motor Vehicle Division.
Pearce said at the time, and continues to maintain, that his firing in the wake of misdeeds by some underlings was unwarranted and unjust. Perhaps. But his continuing shenanigans with the ADOT budget smack of ax-grinding.
Pearce's actions bear close watching by his legislative colleagues -- AND BY VOTERS" (caps are mine).
---------------
It's more true now than it was then, over nine years ago. The state cannot afford Russell Pearce. WE cannot afford Russell Pearce and the damage he continues to do to the state of Arizona. Any legislator who brazenly, openly and boastfully announces that he will deliberately be challenging the time-tested 14th Amendment with his yet unwritten baby-bashing proposal, at our expense, is not a responsible legislator. Nor is he a conservative.
District 18 voters need to retire Russell Pearce. If that does not occur, his colleagues in the legislature need to keep him on a very short leash....lest they too, in the name of Arizona, go down the tubes with him.
Poorman posted at 7:51 am on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.
To poster forkedlift1.i probably spelled it wrong sorry about that.But then again there are probably alot of things or people you never heard of. I'll tand by what i said,The 9th sucks and always has.
DrunkenMonkey posted at 6:20 am on Wed, Nov 3, 2010.
In that case, I think dead people are being discriminated against as well... just because they are dead, doesn't mean they have given up their right to vote... (yep, sarcasm alright...)
Save America posted at 1:23 pm on Tue, Nov 9, 2010.
Our right as citizens is to vote. I have no problem with proving I am here legally in the U. S. I believe anyone who wants to vote, should provide proof of citizenship. But organizations like the Mexican American Legal ..... does not care to protect the integrity of our elections. Organizations like "ONEARIZONA.ORG is another one that doesn't care if the people they are trying to get to vote are legal. America needs to get back on track and defend this country, not only our borders, be in the polls as well.