Arizona ID rule may deny U.S. citizens right to vote

[struggle4progress]

Law passed to keep illegal immigrants from casting ballots
Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times

Sunday, November 6, 2005

Phoenix -- A stringent new voter-identification law being put into effect in Arizona -- designed to keep illegal immigrants from voting -- is also preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots in Tuesday's election, according to election officials.

Part of Proposition 200, which voters approved last year, the regulations require proving U.S. citizenship to register to vote and showing a photo ID at the polls. The law put this border state at the edge of a nationwide push to tighten screening at the polls: 15 states now require ID at polling places, but no other state requires documentation of citizenship in order to register.

It's a movement that advocates say is long overdue to prevent election fraud, but which critics say will decrease voter turnout and has already disenfranchised thousands of legitimate Arizona voters.

In Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, more than 10,000 people trying to register have been rejected for being unable to prove their citizenship. Yvonne Reed, a spokeswoman for the recorder's office, said Friday that most are probably U.S. citizens whose married names differ from the ones on their birth certificates or who have lost documentation. <snip>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/06/MNGARFJR711.DTL

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. And that is, in truth...

The law's intended effect. Bet on it.

Jim Crow: It's not just for African-Americans any more.

[jody]

2. What is there about the process that is bad? It's not wrong to prevent

ineligible voters from voting.

How should a state prevent ineligible voters from voting? :shrug:

ON EDIT ADD:
Are U.S. citizens allowed to vote in elections in other countries?

The answer is YES for those who have dual citizenships but, at least they are legal citizens in two or more countries.

[struggle4progress]

3. One question I would ask is whether this approach is the best way ..

.. to balance the objective of preventing illegal voting against the objective of allowing citizens to vote.

Every law is a balancing act, and there's usually more than one way to aim for the desired result.

The decision about how to balance should be based on underlying realities: how many potential instances of illegal voting by noncitizens are prevented, and what is the probable cost in terms of preventing legitimate citizens from voting?

Of course, Arizona already had criminal penalties for illegal voting and these discouraged such voting ...

[jody]

5. If you were in charge, what would you do? n/t

[struggle4progress]

6. What's the evidence there has been a serious problem?

[jody]

7. The article title in the OP implies U.S. citizens are not being allowed to

vote.

If that's not true, then the new law is simply doing the job it was intended to do.

[struggle4progress]

8. Evidence citizens aren't being allowed to vote is evidence of a problem.

So then the next question is: what's causing this problem?

[jody]

9. A "voter-identification law" is written to prevent unauthorized people

from voting. I see nothing wrong with that unless someone can prove it prevents voters from exercising their right.

The article doesn't do that, it merely speculates.

Does Mexico allow former citizens who have become U.S. citizens to reclaim their Mexican citizenship and vote in elections in Mexico as well as in U.S. elections?

I know some countries do that. It must be great to be allowed to legally vote for the president of two countries.

[struggle4progress]

10. More than 10 000 turned away. Election officials say most are ..

.. probably citizens. Why? Because of a law rightwing Republicans rammed through as part of a nationwide effort to suppress Democratic voting in 2004.

The real question, as I indicated earlier, is one of balance: if there any real evidence that a large number of noncitizens were voting? Election official repeatedly said there wasn't any evidence of such a problem, rightwing noise to the contrary notwithstanding.

[struggle4progress]

4. Bullies at the Voting Booth (R efforts to suppress D turnout 2004)

Published in the October 2004 issue of The Progressive
by Anne-Marie Cusac

<snip> On the ballot in Arizona this November is a Republican-authored referendum called Protect Arizona Now or Proposition 200, which would do several things, including requiring proof of citizenship for anyone registering to vote.

Steve Gallardo, a Democratic state legislator from Arizona, worries about what some supporters of that initiative might do. "There's a lot of rumors . . . that they want to stand out in front of polling places and report voters--anyone they feel is here illegally and is voting in our elections," he says. "Our fear is they're going to intimidate Arizona citizens, U.S. citizens who are brown-skinned. Imagine going up to the poll and seeing a man standing there with a gun and asking if you're a citizen. Are you not going to turn away?"

The Arizona attorney general's office acknowledges that it has heard similar rumors. <snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0917-09.htm

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

11. Goddard had said not applicable to elections, then new election rules were

approved by the feds.

Terry Goddard is one of the good guys.

SOS Jan Brewer is GOP.

According to the article below the rules should not have taken effect yet.

http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=2591


"Election rules approved

By Paul Davenport
The Associated Press


Federal officials have approved new Arizona election rules requiring voters to show identification at polling places but allowing those without IDs to cast provisional ballots. The provisional ballots would be counted only if the voters later produce identification at an election office.

A requirement that voters produce identification at polling places was a provision of a voter-approved law that appeared on the state's November ballot as Proposition 200. It took state officials until last month to work out how it would be implemented.

The U.S. Justice Department approved the procedures Oct. 7 after a review for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, a federal law intended to protect minorities' voting rights.

Proposition 200, placed on the ballot as an initiative, was described by proponents as a way to help combat effects of illegal immigration. Other provisions restrict illegal immigrants' eligibility for certain government programs and services.

Extensive efforts will be needed to educate voters about the new identification requirement, Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard said in separate statements.

The first statewide election to use the new procedures will be the September 2006 primary. But Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said counties or other local jurisdictions conducting elections before then can decide to use the ID requirement.

However, because of the need to get Justice Department approval of changes to counties' election procedures to implement the requirement, it is unlikely the requirement can be implemented in November local elections, Mr. Goddard said.

The federal approval came too late for Maricopa County to implement the requirement in November local elections and its first use instead will come in March, Deputy Elections Director Linda Weedon said. Maricopa County includes metropolitan Phoenix and is home to approximately 60 percent of the state's registered voters.

Ms. Weedon said the county will revise poll-worker training material, polling places' voter logs and signs posted inside and outside polling places to explain the new requirements. ``We want to make sure there's plenty of signage,' she said.

The Justice Department's letter, signed by the chief of the Civil Rights Division's voting section, said it was important that the state's election director on Sept. 28 clarified that counties have discretion to pick convenient locations for accepting identification from voters who received provisional ballots because of lack of identification.

Ms. Weedon said that means Maricopa County can establish satellite ID sites in such places as town and city halls so that voters who cast provisional ballots don't have to travel to the main elections office in downtown Phoenix to produce identification. She said the county likely will give each affected voter a list of places where they can show identification.

That discretion is even more important in rural areas where voters may live hours of driving time away from the county seat, particularly on the sprawling Navajo Reservation in northeastern Arizona, said Coconino County Recorder Candace Owens.

"Give us some time to figure out how we're going to do it," Ms. Owens said.

"Some of the people we're talking about probably don't read because Navajo is a spoken language. Logistically, it's going to be a nightmare." "