Thread: Arizona voters will have to show ID says Supreme Court.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/speci ... d1021.html

Voters, bring your ID to polls

Amanda J. Crawford
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 21, 2006 12:00 AM


Arizona voters will have to present identification at the polls on Nov. 7 after all.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state's new voter-ID requirements, passed as part of 2004's Proposition 200, can be enforced for the general election.

The law, aimed at preventing voter fraud and keeping non-citizens from casting ballots, requires that voters bring a valid photo ID with their address or two forms of non-photo ID with address, such as a utility bill or vehicle registration. Earlier this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the voter-identification requirements on hold while the federal District Court continued to weigh whether the law was constitutional. Opponents have charged that the requirements may keep some legal voters from casting ballots. advertisement




In Friday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court did not rule on the long-term fate of the law or decide whether it was constitutional. It said the 9th Circuit made procedural mistakes when it issued its injunction on Oct. 5 by not explaining the decision or waiting for the District Court to release its findings.

"The facts in these cases are hotly contested, and 'no bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements,' " Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules."


Hailed as victory
Proponents of the voter-ID requirement hailed Friday's decision in Gonzalez vs. Arizona as a victory.

"Every once in a while you live to see justice," said Kathy McKee, author of Proposition 200. She said the ruling sends a message to "activist judges" and allows the state to take important steps to protect the integrity of its elections.

Secretary of State Jan Brewer said Friday was "a great day" for the state, and she praised the court for ruling "in favor of the people."

Brewer and Maricopa County elections officials said the decision means they must ramp up their efforts to get the word out to voters.

Linda Weedon, deputy director of the Maricopa County Elections Office, said they will now go forward with public-service announcements and commercials that were canceled after the 9th Circuit's injunction.


Votes not counted
Opponents are warning that they expect there will be a sizable number of legal voters turned away Nov. 7.

Brewer has said the primary election, the first statewide test of the voter-ID law, went off "without a hitch." But opponents point to hundreds of voters whose votes weren't counted. In Maricopa County, Weedon said 367 ballots cast by people without appropriate identification were never counted. When voters show up without the requisite ID, they are allowed to cast a "conditional provisional ballot." It is only counted if they come back with the right ID.

Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, whose organization is among those challenging the law, said many other voters were turned away by poll workers and not offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot. She said that although supporters of the law make it sound like an easy requirement, disabled voters, elderly voters and the poor often don't have up-to-date drivers licenses, utility bills or vehicle registration cards to prove who they are.

But her organization is gearing up to document what happens at the polls on Nov. 7 to meet the challenge presented in a concurring opinion Friday by Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens said by allowing the law to be enforced on Nov. 7, it gives opponents the chance to prove people are disenfranchised and supporters to substantiate the kind of fraud they are trying to prevent.

Danny Ortega, a Phoenix attorney who helped challenge the law on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the challenge makes Arizona's election into "an experiment."

"We don't want people to be disenfranchised to prove that (the law) had an impact," Ortega said.

"We believe it is going to have an impact, and we should protect them from the beginning and not wait until after the election."

We have provisional ballots in Texas. What's the big deal?

Good to see these frivolous lawsuits and lawyers loosing some money. Please keep spending your stash of cash! I want you broke and out of work.

Dixie

Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, whose organization is among those challenging the law, said many other voters were turned away by poll workers and not offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot.

As a poll worker myself, I don't believe this for a second! How dare this woman paint us as clueless nitwits when, the fact is, WE love offering voters this option if they fail to produce proper ID, or they insist that they are at the correct polling place (despite the fact that their voter card says otherwise).

And someone PLEASE tell me when having to present valid ID at the polls became a NEW law! My mom, who is 78 years old, has had to do so since she began voting! First in her home state of Ariziona (Tuscon) and later, Illinois (Chicago), and, for the past 44 years, Delaware (Newark).

This wouldn't prevent anything in NC. TMK, illegals have all the
documents.

Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, whose organization is among those challenging the law, said many other voters were turned away by poll workers and not offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot.

Was she standing there when this happened?

I don`t believe it either, she just had to throw some lame explanation in to try and tear things apart.