Appeals court OKs Ariz. voter ID, voids proof of citizenship

Apr 17, 2012

Appeals court OKs Ariz. voter ID, voids proof of citizenship

By Michael Winter, USA TODAY Updated 31m ago

Arizona voters can be required to show identification before casting their ballots, but they don't have to prove U.S. citizenship to register, a federal appeals court ruled today, Reuters reports.

The ruling (pdf), by an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the District Court in Arizona on the issue of showing identification to vote, but overturned it regarding proving citizenship to register. Both measures were contained in Proposition 200, passed by Arizona voters in 2004.

Groups representing Latinos, American Indians and women had challenged Prop 200, arguing that the ID requirement violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Phoenix New Times notes.

The plaintiffs argued that because the state charges for official photo identification, the requirement amounted to a "poll tax" that discriminated against poor people. The appellate court rejected that argument.

Requiring voters to provide documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay to obtain the documents. On the contrary, such a requirement falls squarely within the state's power to fix core voter qualifications. ...

In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200's polling place provision is related to the state's legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

In a dissent, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that the ID provision discriminates against Latinos:

History has also shown that when a Latino voter approaches the polling place but is stopped by a person perceived to be an authority figure checking for identification, there's something intimidating about that experience that evokes fear of discrimination. This intimidation has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls.

The plaintiffs can still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regarding Prop. 200's requirement that "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship was necessary to register to vote, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the National Voting Rights Act superseded the Arizona law.

In October, a three-judge appellate panel struck down the citizenship requirement.

BLOG: U.S. appeals court voids Ariz. voter law mandating proof of citizenship

Appeals court OKs Ariz. voter ID, voids proof of citizenship

Quote:

---

History has also shown that when a Latino voter approaches the polling place but is stopped by a person perceived to be an authority figure checking for identification, there's something intimidating about that experience that evokes fear of discrimination. This intimidation has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls.

---

True, but only if they're illegal Latinos. Citizens have no reason to worry about the i.d. requirement.

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f12/73%25-think...minate-255227/

9th Circuit Upholds Voter ID Law
April 18, 2012 | 1 Comment

In a much-needed victory for voter identification laws, a famously liberal federal appellate court has upheld a state measure requiring citizens to show a photo ID before casting a ballot in an election.

The voter ID issue is getting hotter and hotter as the presidential election approaches. More than two dozen states have laws requiring voters to show at least some type of identification to vote. Several states—including Texas and Pennsylvania—have enacted voter ID measures in the last year and the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has vowed to block them or at least heavily scrutinize them.

In fact, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez has publicly said that DOJ lawyers are probing voter ID measures to ensure that they’re not racially discriminatory. “We have received numerous inquiries about recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements and changes to early voting procedures,” Perez said, adding that “we are carefully reviewing these laws.”

This has forced states to waste scarce tax dollars to defend the common-sense policy requiring photo identification at the polls. Democrats and the liberal civil rights groups that support them claim it discriminates against minorities. In fact, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida congresswoman who chairs the Democratic National Committee, says voter ID laws are a “full-scale-assault” on minority voters designed to “rig” elections for Republicans.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed with that absurd assessment. In 2008 the High Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court said in its decision.

This week the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Arizona requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot. A renowned Latino rights group claimed the measure, approved by voters in 2004 to stop illegal immigrants from voting, discriminates against Hispanics because it creates a barrier for minorities that’s tantamount to a poll tax. If true, that would violate equal protection rights within the Constitution.

The 9th Circuit disagreed, saying that no proof was offered to show that the ID requirement gave Latinos fewer opportunities to vote. The Arizona law’s “photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction” and does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, the court wrote in its 73-page decision.

Judicial Watch applauds any measures—such as voter ID requirements—that help keep the election process free of corruption. Earlier this year JW launched the 2012 Election Integrity Project to assure that voter rolls are as clean as required by federal law. Through publicly available data, JW has already discovered that voter rolls in several states—including Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Florida, Alabama, California and Colorado—contain the names of individuals who are not eligible to vote.

9th Circuit Upholds Voter ID Law | Judicial Watch