Thread: Victory - Court Rejects Blocking Ariz. Voter Law

This news didn't even make any of my local 10 p.m. newscasts.

Court Rejects Blocking Ariz. Voter Law
By PAUL DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:17 p.m. MT April 20, 2007
PHOENIX - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt to halt enforcement of an Arizona law that requires voters to show identification before casting a ballot and submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial judge's refusal last year to block the requirement while a legal challenge awaits trial in federal court in Phoenix.

"Now we know we get to enforce the law while the lawsuit is pending," state Solicitor General Mary O'Grady said.

The 2004 law requires that voters at polling places produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification specified by the law. Other parts of the law dealt with ineligibility of illegal immigrants to receive some government services and benefits.

Supporters of the requirement contend it helps prevent voter fraud by non-citizens.

Critics said that the law would disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly, and that requiring voters to acquire and produce identification would be burdensome in time, money and effort.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said the law doesn't appear at first blush to severely burden the right to vote, violate a federal law on voter registration, place a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens or require what would be an unconstitutional poll tax.

The challengers at this point in the case haven't shown they'll prevail or even raised "serious questions going to the merits of their arguments," Chief Judge Mary Schroeder wrote for the court.

A lawyer for the challengers said U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver will be considering testimony and other evidence not available when she denied the request for a preliminary injunction last September.

"We are confident with a full record that the court will rule in our favor," said Carlos Becerra of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

___http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTER_IDENTIFICATION_ARIZONA?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Published: 04.20.2007

Arizona's proof of citizenship in voting requirement upheld
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Arizonans are going to continue to have to present proof of citizenship to register to vote -- at least for the time being.

Without dissent, a federal appellate court ruled Friday that a 3-year-old requirement for Arizonans to produce identification to register to vote is not the same as an illegal "poll tax."

The three-judge panel rejected arguments that people will have to spend money to obtain certain forms of ID to meet the legal mandate that they prove U.S. citizenship. That, attorneys argued, effectively made that a tax on voting, something the U.S. Supreme Court ruled illegal.

But Mary Schroeder, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said that isn't the case here.

"Voters do not have to choose between paying a poll tax and providing proof of citizenship when they register to vote," she wrote for the court.

"They only have to provide the proof of citizenship," Schroeder continued. "Nor does Arizona's new law make the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard."

The judges also rejected other challenges to the ID requirement, including that it placed a disproportionate burden on naturalized citizens and the mandate runs afoul of the National Voting Rights Act.

Friday's ruling does not end the legal dispute, as the appellate judges were being asked to bar the ID requirements while the lawsuit makes its way through a trial court in Phoenix.

"We think they got it wrong," said attorney Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. She conceded, though, the decision shows the appellate court is having a hard time accepting the arguments she and other foes of the identification requirement are presenting.

"The court is signaling that it's current perspective on the law would not allow relief in this case," she said.

But Perales said she believes that could change once the trial judge gets to hear directly from some of the people who have been directly affected by the law.

Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in 2004, denies certain public benefits to those not here legally.

It also requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote as well as identification to cast a ballot. Several different groups have challenged these provisions, charging that they are discriminatory and violate federal law and constitutional requirements.

They also sought to block enforcement of the law while that case is making its way through the federal court system.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver rejected the injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually sided with her, with the justices saying those going to the polls last year did, in fact, have to show ID.

Friday's ruling dealt with the other half of the law: identification requirements to register to vote in the first place.

Rules enacted in the wake of Proposition 200 list six specific types of identification that are proof of citizenship. These include copies of birth certificates, passports, naturalization documents, driver's license or tribal certificate; Indians also can present certain tribal ID numbers.

Opponents said it can cost people money to come up with these documents, making it an impermissible poll tax.

They also cited provisions of the National Voter Registration Act which prohibits states from requiring that registration forms be notarized or otherwise formally authenticated. But Schroeder said that law also allows states to require documentation of citizenship.

"These two provisions plainly allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote," the judge wrote.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/179396

Great news and it's just common sense.

We have to show our ids for various reasons. Why? To prove we are who we say we are.

The integrity of our voting system should be top priority.

"But Perales said she believes that could change once the trial judge gets to hear directly from some of the people who have been directly affected by the law."

This has got to make you ask, did these MALDEF people stage incidents during the election just to create their example to show the judge? How else would they have become aware of this unless it wasn't a plot by their organization? I smell a rat and I hope the Phoenix Federal Judge recognizes that too.

Added to Home PAge
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2103