These days, it seems Arizona is a rebel with too many causes. 2010 is just not a good year for state laws in the courts, nor is it for our elections system.
First there was the U.S. Supreme Court in June blocking public matching funds for candidates, a move that cut millions of dollars from public campaign funding right before the election season picked up. Now the courts say the voting registration process Arizona designed doesn’t match up with the federal dogma.
In 2004, Arizona residents approved a law to make sure all voters verify their citizenship before they’re able to register to vote. The measure has faced some criticism since it was passed, with groups representing Hispanic and Native American interests likening the law to illegal racial discrimination.
On Tuesday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state law, justifying the decision by saying the law does not parallel the National Voter Registration Act.
But opposition to the law is misguided. We frequently hear about the strict guidelines one has to follow in order to vote, but the facts don’t support that claim. Most of us can’t sign up for cable service without providing our Social Security Number, and registering to vote in Arizona doesn’t even require that. By going online, a prospective voter needs to give up little more than a driver’s license or identification card number.
There’s also nothing wrong with requiring proof of citizenship to register. While the state’s other battle with proving legal status is a matter for serious discussion, this one should be clearer. The law says only citizens can vote, so why should a state not be allowed to have a voter verify that they are, in fact, a citizen? It’s not even a matter of providing proof at every election — just once, during registration.
The federal National Voter Registration Act says a state can only gather the identifying information needed to show that a person is eligible to vote, and all voters must indicate that they know and meet the conditions. The judges overturning Arizona’s law said the federal ban on requiring notarization or formal authentication includes a ban on proof of citizenship.
We will admit, however, that some of the recent support for the law has come in questionable ways.
Secretary of State Ken Bennett, the man in charge of Arizona’s elections, told Capitol Media Services that the ruling was akin to asking terrorists to simply sign a certificate allowing them to go unsearched by promising they didn’t have “explosives in [their] underwear.”
We’re not sure why the state’s top elections official would compare voters to terrorists (especially while asking those voters to support him), but perhaps the basis of his argument is legitimate.
The good news is that voter registration is already closed for this election year, so the ruling won’t put a wrench in the cogs right before Election Day (which, don’t forget, is coming up Tuesday). For those headed out to the polls, state law still requires proof of identification to cast a ballot, and a driver’s license will do.
And, as a final note, if you haven’t had enough of the courts butting in on Arizona’s affairs, you’re in luck — round two of the immigration court battle hits the 9th Circuit on Monday, just in time for more political grandstanding before Election Day.
