Thread: AZ-Judge upholds law for ID at polls, registration rule

Judge upholds law for ID at polls, registration rule
2 commentsby Matthew Benson - Aug. 21, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
A federal judge Wednesday upheld the legality of Arizona's law requiring that residents show proof of citizenship in registering to vote and ID at the polls.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected claims by Latino and Native American advocacy groups that the law - known as Proposition 200 and passed by state voters in 2004 - constitutes a poll tax and disproportionately impacts minority voting. Silver noted the state's interest in preventing voter fraud, a key selling point used by Prop. 200 advocates.

"After four years of unsuccessful challenges to our voter integrity laws, I am pleased that the court today put this matter to rest," Secretary of State Jan Brewer said in a statement.



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... r0821.html

You go Arizona! It'd be great to see that in all US States.

OH YEAH! MAYBE ALL THE OTHER 49 WILL DO THE SAME!

Published: 08.21.2008

Citizenship-proof rule for AZ voters is upheld
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
"Over 99 percent of the voters had absolutely no problem complying with the new law during the 2006 election."
Jan Brewer, Arizona secretary of state
PHOENIX — A federal judge late Wednesday upheld a 4-year-old state law requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and to show identification before they can vote.
U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments that the requirements to have certain documents present a financial hardship for some.
She said some data show the law has a slightly harsher impact on Hispanics and American Indians than it does on others. But the judge said the overall effect of that was so minimal as to be virtually insignificant.
On the other side of the equation, Silver said, was evidence from Maricopa and Pima counties that people who were not citizens had registered to vote. That entitles the state to impose new requirements, she said.
"Proposition 200 enhances the accuracy of Arizona's voter rolls and ensures that the rights of lawful voters are not debased by unlawfully cast ballots," she wrote.
Nina Perales, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said she believes Silver "came down on the wrong side of the law." Perales said no decision has been made on an appeal.
The decision, unless overturned, leaves intact key provisions of Proposition 200 approved by voters in 2004.
That law bars those not in this country legally from getting certain benefits.
But it also contains provisions which backers said ensure only those legally entitled to vote will affect the outcome of elections.
MALDEF sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination. The legal papers cited specific claims by individuals about how the law interfered with their right to vote.
Judge Silver said that wasn't the case.
For example, she said, one person has both a naturalization certificate and a U.S. passport, either of which would provide proof of citizenship.
And the judge said another person who was denied a ballot because the name on her driver's license did not match voter rolls was able to take care of the problem simply by having Motor Vehicle Division records updated to reflect her married name.
Silver said the fact people have to provide citizenship proof to register, while making the process more cumbersome, has not prevented most people from completing the process.
She also said Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that 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."
The judge acknowledged that Hispanics had registration applications rejected at a higher rate than would normally occur, given their representation on voter rolls. But she said the result was statistically insignificant.
"Even if everyone prevented from registering by Proposition 200 was allowed to register, the percentage of the electorate that was Latino would only increase by 0.1 percent," Silver wrote.
And she said the slightly larger drop in Hispanic registration rates than among other groups "could have been driven, at least in part, by the lower Latino population growth in 2005-2006."
Perales said that although Silver's math adds up, her logical conclusions do not.
She said the judge was relying on the fact that any difference in the number of people prevented from voting would have not affected elections because Latinos are only a minority of the registered.
But carried to an extreme, Perales said, that is the same as saying Arizona could bar most South Asians from voting because a higher turnout from that tiny group would not make a difference.
Secretary of State Jan Brewer said Silver's findings back her own conclusion the law does not present any special burdens.
Brewer noted both her office and county election officials have publicized the list of documents required both to register and to vote.
"As a result ... over 99 percent of the voters had absolutely no problem complying with the new law during the 2006 election," she said.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/253856

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-3471--0-0.html

Hallelujah! Some VERY GOOD news!

That law bars those not in this country legally from getting certain benefits.
But it also contains provisions which backers said ensure only those legally entitled to vote will affect the outcome of elections.
MALDEF sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination. The legal papers cited specific claims by individuals about how the law interfered with their right to vote.

MALDEF , ILLEGAL , RACIAL , DISCRIMINATION . Well they lefted out Bigot . Groups this insane and bazzar should be labeled Anti-American and Communist . Just so the Sheep's that sleep thur all but the mall can get a clue
Of course ID with Voter Reg should be shown . Now that obama-snob's panties are in a pinch ,let's see what he does

A very logical, common sense ruling, which seem to be fairly short supply these days.

All other states need to follow this lead!

Originally Posted by mapwife

Published: 08.21.2008
MALDEF sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination.

What the heck is their problem, Mexico has even stricter voting laws so how could the AZ law be racist?