U.S. court to hear cases on voting curbs as Arizona prepares for primary polls

Thousands who couldn’t prove citizenship can only vote for federal offices

Share with others:

Print Email Read Later

PHOENIX — A de­cades-old ef­fort by Con­gress to make voter reg­is­tra­tion sim­ple and uni­form across the coun­try has run up against a new era’s anti-im­mi­gra­tion pol­i­tics. So on Tues­day when Ari­zona’s pri­mary polls open for gov­er­nor, at­tor­ney gen­eral and a host of other state and lo­cal po­si­tions as well as for Con­gress, some vot­ers will be per­mit­ted to vote only in the race for Con­gress.

As voter reg­is­tra­tion drives in­ten­sify in the com­ing weeks, the list of vot­ers on the “fed­eral only” rolls for the No­vem­ber gen­eral elec­tions could reach the thou­sands. These are vot­ers who could not pro­duce the pa­per proof of cit­i­zen­ship that Ari­zona de­mands for vot­ing in state elec­tions.

The un­usual di­vi­sion of vot­ers into two tiers im­posed by Ari­zona and Kan­sas, and be­ing con­sid­ered in Geor­gia, Ala­bama and else­where, is at the cen­ter of a con­sti­tu­tional show­down and, as Rich­ard L. Hasen, an elec­tions ex­pert at the Univer­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Irvine, put it, “part of a larger par­ti­san strug­gle over the con­trol of elec­tions.”

The is­sues will be ar­gued Mon­day be­fore a panel of the 10th U.S. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, in Den­ver. This year, the cir­cuit court tem­po­rar­ily blocked a lower court de­ci­sion that would have forced fed­eral of­fi­cials to in­clude the state’s proof of cit­i­zen­ship re­quire­ments on reg­is­tra­tion forms used in Ari­zona and Kan­sas.

Apart from the le­gal prin­ci­ples at stake, groups work­ing to sign up vot­ers say the doc­u­ment re­quire­ments will most heav­ily af­fect mi­nor­i­ties, the poor, older adults and col­lege stu­dents who move into the state, ef­fec­tively dis­en­fran­chis­ing some.

“These re­stric­tive reg­is­tra­tion laws only add to the bar­ri­ers fac­ing La­tino vot­ers,” said Raquel Teran, the Ari­zona state di­rec­tor of Mi Fa­milia Vota, a na­tional group pro­mot­ing His­panic po­lit­i­cal par­tic­i­pa­tion. Fed­eral elec­tion of­fi­cials and other ex­perts say that il­le­gal vot­ing by non­cit­i­zens is rare and in­con­se­quen­tial.

The doc­u­ment re­quire­ments im­posed by Ari­zona and Kan­sas are at odds with a 1993 fed­eral law that re­quires po­ten­tial vot­ers in fed­eral elec­tions sim­ply to swear on pen­alty of per­jury, and per­haps de­por­ta­tion, that they are cit­i­zens. Fed­eral reg­is­tra­tion forms, ac­cepted by nearly all the states along­side their own forms, do not ask for sup­port­ing pa­per­work like birth cer­tif­i­cates, which some find hard to ob­tain.

Ari­zona’s at­tor­ney gen­eral, Tom Horne, a Re­pub­li­can, sees the dis­pute over voter cer­ti­fi­ca­tion as a win­ning is­sue as he cam­paigns for re-elec­tion.

“People are very emo­tional about il­le­gals vot­ing and di­lut­ing their own votes,” Mr. Horne said in an in­ter­view.

Mr. Horne, who is bat­tling al­le­ga­tions of cam­paign fi­nance and other eth­ics vi­o­la­tions, is known for his hard-line views on im­mi­gra­tion. In speeches and a new tele­vi­sion ad, he boasts that he “fought voter fraud” by per­son­ally de­fend­ing Ari­zona’s proof-of-cit­i­zen­ship rules in court.

Just how many vot­ers will be fro­zen out of lo­cal and state elec­tions is un­clear. In Mari­copa County, which ac­counts for 60 per­cent of Ari­zona’s pop­u­la­tion, of­fi­cials said that as of last week, 811 vot­ers were on the fed­eral-only list, but only 303 of them were con­sid­ered “ac­tive vot­ers.”

Based on ex­pe­ri­ence, in­ten­si­fied voter drives in com­ing weeks will re­sult in a surge of new reg­is­tra­tions in­clud­ing many from peo­ple who do not have birth cer­tif­i­cates or other doc­u­ments at hand, said Sam Wer­cin­ski, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Ari­zona Ad­vo­cacy Net­work, a lib­eral group pro­mot­ing “elec­toral justice.”

In Kan­sas, while the fed­eral-only rolls are small, about 19,000 ap­pli­cants have been placed on a “sus­pense list” be­cause their state forms are in­com­plete, in some cases be­cause they did not pro­vide the newly re­quired proof of cit­i­zen­ship, said Dol­ores Fur­tado, pres­i­dent of the League of Women Vot­ers of Kan­sas.

Reg­is­tra­tion drives here have been com­pli­cated by the need to of­fer dif­fer­ent forms. Most ap­pli­cants fill out the state form if they have the re­quired proof, which for many here is an Ari­zona driver’s li­cense first ob­tained since 1996, when cit­i­zen­ship sta­tus was reg­is­tered on li­censes. Others use the fed­eral form, end­ing up on the fed­eral-only roll.

Col­lege stu­dents ar­riv­ing from other states who want to vote in Ari­zona are of­ten af­fected since they are un­likely to have birth cer­tif­i­cates or other proof of cit­i­zen­ship with them, al­though they can change their sta­tus in the fu­ture if they ob­tain them.

Re­pub­li­can of­fi­cials like Mr. Horne and Kris W. Kobach, the Kan­sas sec­re­tary of state, in­sist that fraud­u­lent reg­is­tra­tion is a sig­nifi­cant threat, cit­ing an­ec­dotal re­ports and spo­radic pros­e­cu­tions.

But the fed­eral Elec­tion As­sis­tance Com­mis­sion, when in Jan­u­ary it again turned down the Ari­zona and Kan­sas re­quests to al­ter the fed­eral form, con­cluded that the num­ber of con­firmed fraud cases is minute and “is not cause to con­clude that ad­di­tional proof of cit­i­zen­ship must be re­quired.”


You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here