by Staff Reporter | Aug 3, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Around two weeks after its initial ruling allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voter registrations, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling from its motions panel.
That means that state voter registration forms may be accepted without proof of citizenship, as they have been since the LULAC Consent Decree went into effect over eight years ago.
The LULAC Consent Decree was the end result of a lawsuit against Arizona’s requirements of documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). Under the consent decree, Arizona agreed to accept state voter registration forms without DPOC and register them as federal-only voters. Once a court approves a consent decree, it carries the same weight and enforcement of a final judgment.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) prohibits Arizona from requiring DPOC of voters registering with the federal voter registration form.
In the 2-1 ruling for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the court determined that the motions panel overlooked specific considerations pertaining to election cases and “misunderstood the extent of confusion and chaos” such a change to election rules that the contested legislation, ARS 16-121.01(C), had brought.
The court stated that the state legislature’s new enactment of a DPOC requirement for state forms was an “upset [to] the status quo” because it altered voter registration rules shortly before the primary election last month, and well into the registration timeline for the upcoming election.
“The motions panel overlooked this fundamental principle of judicial restraint, resulting in manifest injustice to voters and election officials alike,” said the court.
The Ninth Circuit also wrote that the DPOC requirement caused elections officials to choose between violating the state law, a class 6 felony, or violating the consent decree provisions within the Election Procedures Manual, a class 2 misdemeanor. The court characterized this as a “manifest injustice” carried out by the motions panel.
“Elections officials are now subject to conflicting criminal penalties, orders, and policies. Identically situated voter registration applicants are treated differently depending on the voter registration application form they picked up,” said the court. “All Arizonans must now navigate an arcane web of shifting and confusing rules that will without a doubt dissuade some who are otherwise eligible and willing from exercising the fundamental right to vote.”
The court wrote that nothing would change the outcome of their ruling, unless the LULAC Consent Decree was modified or set aside.
“Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants offer no authority to suggest that a state legislature may nullify a final judgment entered by an Article III court which Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants have not sought to set aside, modify, or otherwise terminate,” stated the court.
The court also rejected the argument that striking DPOC would cause irreparable harm to either the Republican National Committee or lawmakers supportive of the DPOC requirement.
“[T]he RNC has not at any point explained why the use of the State Form to register applicants without accompanying DPOC to vote in federal elections, when identically situated applicants may register for at least federal elections without accompanying DPOC through the Federal Form even with a stay in place, inflicts an irreparable ‘competitive injury’ on the RNC,” said the court.
Counsel defending DPOC for state voter registration forms informed AZ Free News that they intend to file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court at some point within the next week.
The one judge to dissent from the Ninth Circuit Court ruling, Judge Patrick Bumatay, noted that his court had exercised an “irregular and strongly disfavored” power by reconsidering the motion panel’s order, usually reserved for actions by colleagues that amount to “a manifest injustice.” Bumatay disagreed. He said that the lawmakers and other Intervenor-Appellants have proved likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of interests, and public interest.
“With the political nature of this case, we should be especially careful to avoid the use of unconventional or disfavored procedures,” said Butamay.
Butamay contended that the LULAC Consent Decree wasn’t binding on the Arizona legislature. He said that such a perception of permanent judicial power over lawmakers presented separation-of-powers concerns. Further, Butamay argued that the NVRA doesn’t preempt the DPOC requirement, and that the state would face irreparable harm by having its statutory authority enjoined.
Further, Bumatay noted that the significance of this reverse ruling had nothing to do with merit of the claims, but the random assignment of the reconsideration.
“All the public can take away from this episode is that four judges of the Ninth Circuit have voted to partially stay the injunction here, while two other judges voted against it,” said Butamay. “The two judges prevail — not because of any special insight, but because of the luck of an internal Ninth Circuit draw.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jul 19, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A federal court ruled on Thursday that those registering with the state of Arizona to vote must provide proof of citizenship. Otherwise, their application will be rejected.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its brief ruling in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes. In it, the court granted a stay pending appeal for the injunction barring enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C), the provision in statute requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration applications not produced by the U.S. election assistance commission — in other words, state-issued forms.
“The district court’s May 2, 2024 judgment is therefore stayed to the extent that it bars forcement of [the statute],” wrote the court.
However, two other provisions remain blocked under this most recent ruling and the one cited from the district court.
The previous ruling declared that the National Voter Registration Act preempts registration restrictions for presidential elections and voting by mail; the LULAC Consent Decree prohibits rejections of state registration forms on the basis of lack of documentary proof of citizenship as well as residence; the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the state from implementing a checkbox asking a voter to affirm their citizenship status as well as the requirement to disclose place of birth; and the Civil Rights Act’s Different Standards, Practices, or Procedures Provision prohibits requiring county recorders to conduct citizenship checks using the USCIS SAVE system.
Senate President Warren Petersen said the ruling represented an election integrity victory.
“Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections. It sounds like common sense, but the radical left elected officials in our state continue to reject this notion, disrespecting the voices of our lawful Arizona voters,” said Warren. “We are grateful the court is upholding this provision in our law, and it’s time for Congress to take action to ensure only lawful U.S. citizens are voting in federal races.”
Lawyer Marc Elias for the activists challenging Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirements, however, argued that the ruling was a win for them since it denied key portions of the Republican motion. Elias dubbed proof of citizenship measures as “voter suppression.”
“9th Circuit (with 3 Trump appointees) denies key portions of Republican motion to stay trial court victory in Arizona voter suppression lawsuit,” said Elias.
In addition to progressive activist group Mi Familia Vota, other parties to the case include Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (appellee), Petersen (appellant), Kris Mayes (appellant), Promise Arizona and Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (appellant).
The courts are determining whether the Arizona Republican Party may enter the case as an intervenor.
The appeal for the case was scheduled for this September.
Earlier this week, election integrity groups coordinating under America First Legal issued letters to all of Arizona’s county recorders reminding them to purge the voter rolls of non-citizen voters.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | May 22, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona legislative Republicans are again standing for election integrity.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Ben Toma, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a motion “for a partial stay of the injunction against the enforcement of those provisions of HB 2492 that:
1. Prohibit registered voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) from voting for President of the United States;
2. Prohibit registered voters who have not provided DPOC from voting by mail; or
3. Are inconsistent with the consent degree entered in League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona v. Reagan.”
The case that the Arizona Legislature and the RNC weighed in on was Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes.
The Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus wrote, “Biden’s open border policies are causing chaos and eroding confidence in Arizona’s elections. Seems like common sense, but only American citizens should have the right to cast a ballot in our elections. Senate President Warren Petersen is fighting to block individuals who do not provide proof of citizenship from this privilege. Election integrity is being compromised, and we will not sit idly by while our state and country are run into the ground by flawed election practices. Today, we filed a motion asking a U.S. District Court to allow Arizona to enforce its laws that limit voting for president and voting by mail to only those who provide proof of citizenship.”
Speaker Toma added, “Arizona voting laws that require proof of citizenship are common-sense regulations & critical to ensuring confidence in Arizona elections. I intervened in the Mi Familia case last year to fully defend these laws in federal court. Today I asked the court to stay its injunction and allow Arizona to enforce its citizenship requirements in the 2024 election.”
“It’s common sense,” said President Petersen in an exclusive comment to AZ Free News. “If you are not a legal citizen, you should not have the right to vote in the US. Other countries prohibit non-citizens, and we should too. It is unfathomable that the Democrats and the judicial branch are fighting us on this issue.”
In a press release, the Republican National Committee noted the joint court filing, stating that it had “filed a motion to stay the court’s order, pending our appeal, that ruled Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship in mail voting and presidential elections. If successful, this means Arizona would require documentary proof of citizenship ahead of this year’s election as we fight the issue on appeal. This is a consequential legal step to stopping non-citizen voting in Arizona.”
In their brief, the intervenor-defendants argued that “the Ninth Circuit is likely to find that neither the NVRA nor the LULAC Consent Decree preempts HB 2492, [that] the partial nullification of HB 2492 irreparably injures the legislative intervenors as representatives of the state and of the legislative institution and inflicts a competitive injury on the RNC, [and that] the balance of equities and public policy support a partial stay.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 2, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Thursday, the Arizona District Court struck down provisions of two laws requiring proof of citizenship for voters.
In the 109-page order for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, Judge Susan Bolton ruled that several proof of citizenship provisions within HB2492 and HB2243, “Voting Laws,” violated federal laws pertaining to voting rights. The overturned provisions concerned birthplace requirement disclosures for voter registrations, county recorders investigating voters based on a “reason to believe” someone is a noncitizen, and disclosure of residence in order to register for federal elections.
There are over 19,000 federal-only voters who haven’t submitted proof of citizenship.
“The Court finds that though it may occur, non-citizens voting in Arizona is quite rare, and non-citizen voter fraud in Arizona is rarer still,” stated Bolton. “But while the Voting Laws are not likely to meaningfully reduce possible non-citizen voting in Arizona, they could help to prevent non-citizens from registering or voting.”
Bolton ruled that HB2492 violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act because its requirement of proof of birthplace for voter registration was immaterial in determining eligibility to vote. Bolton said that since the provision wasn’t retroactive it wouldn’t apply to the approximately one-third of active voter registrations lacking birthplace.
“That Arizona has determined these voters are qualified to vote notwithstanding the lack of any meaningful birthplace information strongly indicates birthplace is immaterial,” said Bolton.
HB2243’s directive for county recorders to deny voters based on a “reason to believe” that the voter may be a noncitizen violates the Different Practices Provision, Bolton ruled. The judge said the provision would unfairly subject naturalized citizens to citizenship database checks, and not native-born citizens.
Bolton also ruled that the state couldn’t require individuals registering using federal-only forms to provide documentary proof of residence (DPOR). Bolton determined that the voting laws requiring attestation of residency was sufficient to determine eligibility.
“Because the Voting Laws require a State Form to include DPOR, the State Form is not ‘equivalent’ to the Federal Form,” said Bolton. “Arizona may not reject State Forms lacking DPOR and must register these applicants as Federal-Only Voters.”
However, Bolton ruled HB2243’s requirement of county recorders to investigate federal-only voters’ citizenship statuses doesn’t violate federal voting law, since the state doesn’t require individuals to submit additional information beyond the federal registration form. Bolton noted that overturning such investigatory efforts would leave states without the ability to discover proof of citizenship.
“Arizona must accept the Federal Form as prima facie proof of an applicant’s eligibility to vote but the NVRA does not preclude Arizona from independently determining that an applicant or voter is ineligible,” said Bolton. “Were the Court to embrace Plaintiffs’ theory that section 6 prohibited a county recorder from requesting information not contained on the Federal Form after confirming non-citizenship, Arizona seems left with no apparent means to request proof of eligibility before cancelling [sic] a registration.”
Bolton further ruled that the county recorders could use federal and state databases to review citizenship information.
Court proceedings revealed that county recorders haven’t submitted to the attorney general a list of all registered voters who haven’t provided documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) by Oct. 31, 2022 as required by HB2492. Therefore, the attorney general hasn’t investigated the citizenship status of any dubious registered voters.
Contrary to the claims of Democratic lawmakers and activists, Bolton said that neither of the proof of citizenship laws were enacted with the intent of purposeful discrimination.
“The legislative record lacks any indicia of a nefarious motive,” said Bolton. “And despite [witnesses’] account of Arizona’s history of discrimination, neither expert articulated a persuasive factual nexus between this history and the Fifty-Fifth Legislature’s enactment of the Voting Laws.”
Bolton also ruled that the voting laws primarily imposed burdens on county recorders and the attorney general, not voters.
“The Voting Laws’ ongoing database checks, investigations by the Attorney General, and potential rejection or cancellation of a voter’s registration are not burdens, but merely the consequences of not providing DPOC,” said Bolton. “Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court concludes that Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide DPOC.”
Bolton indicated that she was open to weighing the socioeconomic burdens for certain individuals — especially those considered marginalized — but that the Democratic parties and activist groups hadn’t presented any witnesses or evidence to prove that the voting laws would impede qualified voters from registering to vote or remaining on the voter rolls. Specifically, they didn’t estimate the quantity or demographics of those federal-only voters who lacked DPOC.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Feb 28, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Phoenix resident Brian Anderson received a surprise last week when he checked the contents of his newly-registered UPS mailbox: a mail-in ballot made out to a woman who has lived in Fulton County, Georgia for the past decade.
“This person appears to have been living (and voting!) in Fulton County, Georgia since at least 2015,” said Anderson. “Yet her Maricopa ballots presumably have been mailed to this UPS box every election for the past decade?”
Anderson later reported that he marked the ballot as invalid and returned it to USPS.
Registered voters may obtain a mail-in ballot by either joining the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) or making a one-time request for such a ballot. Under AEVL, voters may receive early ballots by mail indefinitely, so long as they vote at least once every two election cycles, or four calendar years.
Anderson shared with AZ Free News what he’d discovered through public records: the woman named on the ballot had moved out of Arizona around 2013, and has voted in Georgia elections since at least 2016.
“I just don’t understand how no one has marked this lady as inactive after a decade,” said Anderson.
The continued mailing of ballots to ineligible voters doesn’t necessarily mean that those voters have voted in recent past elections.
Under a law passed in 2021 turning the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) into AEVL, SB1485, voters are supposed to be removed from AEVL if they haven’t cast an early ballot over the course of two consecutive federal election cycles and fail to respond within 90 days to a mailed notice from the county recorder. Such a response would have to include a written confirmation of that voter’s desire to remain on AEVL, along with their address and date of birth.
Removal from AEVL doesn’t cancel a voter’s registration, and doesn’t preclude the voter from rejoining AEVL.
The law is under ongoing litigation launched by progressive activists currently: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes. They allege that the laws violate the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments along with the Voting Rights Act by imposing a greater barrier to vote that disproportionately impacts non-white individuals.
The implementation of AEVL is also under the subject of another lawsuit from Arizona’s GOP legislative leaders challenging Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ Election Procedures Manual (EPM). They alleged that Fontes’ EPM contradicts the implication of SB1485.
Instead of county recorders issuing notices to AEVL members who didn’t cast an early ballot over the 2022 or 2024 election cycles in 2025, Fontes’ EPM directs county recorders to send notices to AEVL members who didn’t vote by early ballot in the 2024 or 2026 election cycles. The GOP leaders argued that the scope of SB1485 included the 2022 election cycle, though Fontes contended that the cycle predated the law’s passage since the cycle began on Jan. 1, 2021.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
