Thread: Someone is Going to Sue Over Prop 200 Enforcement

June 24, 2005
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php? ... 405b4_robb

Robb: Someone is going to sue over Prop. 200 enforcement

ROBERT ROBB
The Arizona Republic

Arizona appears headed toward a major political and legal blowup over implementing the voter identification provisions of Prop. 200. And there doesn't seem to be any adult supervision.
Prop. 200 requires that a voter, before getting a ballot, show a photo ID with his name and address or two nonphoto IDs with name and address.

There are two policy questions involved with implementing this provision: (1) how close a match there needs to be on the name and address; and (2) what is done with voters who are on the precinct register but don't have Proposition 200-compliant ID.

The address match is particularly dicey, since those that many people have on their drivers license - the most likely photo ID - are different than the street addresses most likely on the precinct register. Since this discrepancy is likely to fall more heavily on minority voters, particularly American Indians, there may be some Voting Rights Act implications as well.

According to Secretary of State Jan Brewer, the Attorney General's Office initially advised her that an address matching what was on the precinct register was required by Prop. 200. But Attorney General Terry Goddard then rejected proposed election regulations complying with that advice, in part because of the voting rights concern.

Initially, Goddard also took the position that permitting addresses other than street addresses to be accepted on photo ID might "more appropriately" be handled through legislation than regulation.

But that's a problem, since, thanks to the ill-advised Voter Protection Act, any change to a voter-approved measure requires a three-quarters vote in the Legislature. And for anything Prop. 200-related, that's unlikely. Lately, Goddard seems to be saying that expanding the address requirement to avoid voting rights problems can be done through regulation after all.

Goddard also initially took the position that, before Prop. 200 could be implemented, federal law required provisional ballots be given to those without proper ID. Now, he seems to be saying the name and address match issue could be resolved without dealing with provisional ballots.

And here enters Gov. Janet Napolitano. The Legislature twice passed provisional ballot provisions for those on the precinct register but lacking Prop. 200-compliant ID. In keeping with the spirit of Prop. 200, some form of identification would have been required to receive a provisional ballot, but from a broader list than required to receive a nonprovisional ballot. Napolitano twice vetoed them, citing no ID should be necessary to receive a provisional ballot.

Goddard has urged meetings between his office, the secretary of state and the governor to work out these issues, to the extent they can be. Brewer has blasted his office's inconsistent advice, and refused to participate in such meetings, claiming they undermine her authority as chief elections officer.

In the meantime, elections keep getting held that do not comply with Prop. 200's voter ID requirements. Ultimately, someone's going to sue.

Here's an adult perspective:

With the passage of Prop. 200, voters clearly expressed a preference for voting security over convenience. Opponents of Prop. 200 and of extending its voter ID principle say Arizona doesn't have any serious history of voter fraud. And that's true.

Opponents of Prop. 200 and of extending its voter ID principle say Arizona doesn't have any serious history of voter fraud. And that's true.

Just out of curiosity, how do they know this?

No one from either party, to my knowledge, has any interest at all in investigating voter fraud. .

Why opposse it if thye are legal citiznes and have proof of who they are?