by Corinne Murdock | Mar 7, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is urging the Arizona legislature to appeal a ruling from the Arizona District Court striking down portions of two laws requiring proof of citizenship from voters. AFEC lobbied for and assisted in the drafting of the contested laws; now, it says it plans to file briefs in support of the appeals it hopes the legislature will file. The state has over 19,000 federal-only voters who haven’t submitted proof of citizenship.
Federal judge Susan Bolton ruled last week against provisions within HB2492 and HB2243 requiring proof of birthplace for voter registrations, investigations by county recorders based on the belief a voter is a noncitizen, and the voter’s disclosure of residence in order to register for federal elections. AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a press release that while it was a relief Bolton didn’t overturn the laws in their entirety, the provisions she did strike down were consequential.
“Though Arizonans can take solace in the fact that an activist judge didn’t completely dismantle these reasonable and commonsense laws, we are extremely disappointed in her decision to strike down several lawful provisions that we expect will be upheld on appeal,” said Mussi. “Officials across all branches and jurisdictions of our government should be working to uphold the integrity of our laws and to ensure that the votes of American citizens are not canceled or compromised by even a single illegal vote.”
Although Bolton struck down core provisions of the laws, she disagreed with the claims of activist groups that the legislators passed them with racist intent. However, Bolton did write that AFEC’s language in lobbying materials distributed to legislators was potentially discriminatory against Latinos. Per court documents, AFEC referred to illegal immigrants as “illegals.”
“[AFEC] disseminated lobbying materials by email to Arizona legislators that described how the Voting Laws would prevent ‘illegals’ from voting in Arizona elections,” said Bolton. “[T]he use of ‘code words’ may demonstrate discriminatory intent, and the term ‘illegals’ can evince racial animus for members of the Latino community in Arizona.”
“Illegals” is slang for individuals of any race and any country who migrated into the U.S. illegally, meaning the term isn’t restricted in its scope to Latino illegal immigrants.
Mussi also stated in AFEC’s press release that Bolton’s assessment amounted to a false accusation of discrimination. He said Bolton’s implication of racism was “laughable” considering that the illegal immigrants causing the border crisis have hailed from nearly all countries across the globe.
“It is outrageous that Judge Bolton would use an official court opinion to falsely accuse concerned and law-abiding American citizens of having racist intent in our efforts to pass legislation to strengthen election integrity in this state,” said Mussi. “This accusation is especially laughable when we consider the state of the open border, where millions of men, women, and children from more than 160 countries of origin have illegally crossed into America – many of whom are taking up residence and receiving benefits on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. It shouldn’t take a grassroots advocacy organization to point out the constitutional responsibility of a federal court, yet sadly, this is the present state of our nation.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
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 AZ Free Enterprise Club | Feb 12, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
When all else fails, cry racism. That seems to be the playbook the Far-Left utilizes any time it can’t make a coherent argument against election integrity laws. And here we are once again. The latest accusations of racism come amidst a series of depositions along with closing arguments in a lawsuit filed by a cabal of liberal organizations against two commonsense voter registration laws: HB 2243 and HB 2492.
Passed in 2022 and signed by then-Governor Ducey, HB 2243 ensures that only eligible voters remain registered by requiring regular voter roll maintenance. And so far, it has proven to be effective—revealing that over 78,000 individuals have been identified on Arizona’s voter rolls as either noncitizens or nonresidents. When you consider how close some of our state’s races were in 2022, these numbers should be great cause for alarm. But of course, many of those close races went in favor of Democrats, so the Left doesn’t want to ask too many questions.
HB 2492, which was also passed in 2022 and signed by then-Governor Ducey, bolsters safeguards to our voter registration process to require proof of citizenship ensuring that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections. Where’s the controversy here? U.S. citizens cannot go into France, Australia, or any other country throughout the world and vote in their elections, so why should citizens from other countries be allowed to vote in our elections?
Not too long after both bills were signed into law, the Left filed a lawsuit against them and recently made a part of the proceedings about…the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (who is not a party in the lawsuit)…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Nov 29, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
We’re less than a year away from our next election, and if Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is serious about doing his job, his primary focus should be on ensuring a process where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. Instead, Fontes has been attempting to implement an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions all while ignoring a giant (and growing) elephant in the room.
In its last two quarterly reports to the Arizona state legislature, the Secretary of State’s office reported that over 78,000 individuals have been identified on our state’s voter rolls as noncitizens or nonresidents. This number includes:
- Over 53,200 individuals who were reported to have been issued a driver’s license or the equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating license ID in another state.
- Over 1,300 individuals who admitted to not being a U.S. citizen on a jury questionnaire.
- Over 23,600 individuals who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire.
These numbers should be great cause for alarm—especially when you consider how close some of our state’s races were in 2022—and these individuals should be immediately removed from our state’s voter rolls. So, what did Fontes do in response to this news?
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 19, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
