by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 18, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s leading legislative Republicans are taking their defense of election integrity laws to the nation’s high court.
Last week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an Emergency Application for Stay at the Supreme Court of the United States in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota. The brief was filed with Justice Elena Kagan in the ongoing dispute over HB 2492, which was passed in 2022.
According to the legislators’ brief, the relevant aspects of the law under challenge were the requirement for “elections officials to reject any state-form application that is not accompanied by documentary proof of citizenship,” and the provision “that voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship may not vote for president or by mail.”
In their brief, the lawmakers argue that “there is a reasonable probability that four justices would vote to grant review and a fair prospect that this Court would reverse,” and that “applicants will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.”
The emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court follows a mixed – and rather unprecedented – ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Last month, a panel on the court issued an order in support of the Arizona law’s requirement for proof of citizenship in state voter registrations. However, another panel on the same appeals court overturned this ruling, giving anyone in the state the ability to register to vote on a state form without first proving their citizenship.
After the shocking turn of events at the appeals court, Petersen had said, “This is just another example of why the radical Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the nation. They routinely engage in judicial warfare to carry out their extremist liberal agenda that’s contrary to the laws our citizens elected us to implement. We will seek assistance from the Supreme Court to ensure only American citizens are voting in our elections. If this principle is not followed, democracy as we know it, and as our Founding Fathers intended, is in jeopardy.”
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley stated: “Requiring proof of citizenship is common sense and fundamental to preserving the integrity of our elections – especially in our country’s most important presidential election. This application in the Supreme Court is pivotal to ensuring that Arizonans’ votes are not cancelled by non-citizens. Non-citizen voting is illegal and we are taking every possible action to ensure American elections are decided solely by Americans.”
Petersen and Toma make the case that “the improper injunction also harms the Arizona Legislature as an institution because it constitutes an extrinsic constraint on the Legislature’s lawmaking functions. The injunction thwarts the Legislature from disallowing individuals who have not proved their U.S. citizenship from participating in Arizona’s selection of its presidential electors or from using Arizona’s generous mail-in voting option.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 6, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Tuesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it sued the state over its new law requiring individuals to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The law, HB2492, wouldn’t take effect until next January.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke called Arizona’s proof of citizenship rule an “onerous” and “unnecessary” requirement.
The DOJ contended in its press release that Arizona’s law violates Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act. The NVRA specifies that individuals aren’t required to show proof of citizenship for the federal voter registration form enabling them to vote in federal elections, just to attest that they have one: these are called “federal-only voters.”
In its lawsuit, the DOJ rationalized that the federal voter registration form doesn’t require anything beyond an attestation because documentation “is not necessary to prove citizenship.”
The DOJ also cited the 2013 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, which determined that Arizona couldn’t require proof of citizenship for those registering to vote using the federal form.
As for the alleged Civil Rights Act violation, the DOJ argued that Arizona officials couldn’t deny individuals the right to vote if they willfully or mistakenly didn’t check a box on the voter registration form confirming that they’re a U.S. citizen. The checkmark serves as an attestation of citizenship, similar to the one outlined by the NVRA.
With this lawsuit, the Biden administration effectively declared their allegiance with other establishment Democrats suing Arizona over the citizenship requirement. At the helm of lawsuits from progressive activist organizations is Marc Elias, a favored lawyer within the Democratic Party who was at the center of the 2016 Russiagate hoax.
Elias celebrated the DOJ’s action.
HB2492 not only requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote. It also requires election officials to cross-check applicants’ citizenship through government databases. On top of local and state databases, these include databases within the Department of Transportation concerning Arizona IDs and driver licenses, the Social Security Administration, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, and the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems Electronic Verification of Vital Events System.
Over 11,000 voters in the 2020 election didn’t provide proof of citizenship. In 2018, that number was about 1,700.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich pledged to fight the Biden administration to uphold the law.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | May 13, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Thursday, three GOP groups intervened in a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new law requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Republican Party of Arizona (RPAZ), the Mohave County Republican Central Committee, and the Gila County Republican Committee intervened to challenge the plaintiffs: two activist organizations advocating for progressive policies, Mi Familia Vota and Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).
In their motion to intervene, the GOP groups asserted that voter ID preserved election integrity.
“[T]he question for this Court is not whether Movants have an interest in maintaining an ‘unconstitutional’ law. The question is whether Movants have an interest in preventing a federal court from enjoining a valid law that increases voter confidence and promotes election integrity,” read their motion.
Both Mi Familia Vota and LUCHA received help from one of the top lawyers for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: Russiagate hoax lawyer Marc Elias.
In a press release, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel defended the new Arizona law as common-sense policy. She added that the law would hold Democrats accountable for their “underhanded election tactic” of rejecting voter ID.
“American elections should be decided by American citizens: full stop. When it comes to non-citizens voting, Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game because their radical ideas won’t win on an even playing field,” said McDaniel.
Democrats argued that requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote was unconstitutional and against federal law.
However, legal experts like former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould clarified that the Constitution never empowered non-citizens with the right to vote. Gould told Arizona Daily Independent that the Constitution actually excludes non-citizens.
“Of course, non-citizens have never had a right to vote under the Constitution, and so it is absurd to argue that HB2492 takes away a legal, constitutional right to vote from anyone,” said Gould. “Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is a neutral, reasonable, non-discriminatory restriction that operates to exclude one group: non-citizens.”
If the new law withstands legal challenges, it wouldn’t go into effect until 2023.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | May 9, 2022 | News
The Democrats’ top lawyer and central actor in Russia collusion hoax, Marc Elias, deleted all tweets published prior to April 4. As AZ Free News reported, Elias is assisting several activist groups in their lawsuits against Arizona for enacting a law requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. According to court filings, only one case has seen action beyond the initial complaint: the court allowed Attorney General Mark Brnovich to intervene in the case filed by Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).
Elias hasn’t offered an explanation for the sudden purge; he joined Twitter in March 2009. In recent months, federal investigators have closed in on those behind the Russia collusion hoax, or Russiagate.
At the end of March, the Federal Election Commission fined the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign $113,000 for misrepresenting payments for opposition research used to create Russiagate. Elias was Clinton’s general counsel and his law firm at the time, Perkins Coie, billed for “legal expenses” that were used to hire an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to do their work on former President Donald Trump.
Fusion GPS obtained the debunked “Steele dossier” linking Trump to Russia from former British spy Christopher Steel, who created the dossier using false information from a Russian analyst living in Virginia, Igor Danchenko, who in turn received some ideas from former Clinton aide Charles Donlan Jr.
Buzzfeed first published the fake dossier in January 2017, ten days before Trump’s inauguration. The lies cast a shadow on all four years of Trump’s presidency.
Although Elias wasn’t President Joe Biden’s general counsel for his campaign — he served as Vice President Kamala Harris’ general counsel during her short bid for president — the Biden campaign and the DNC enlisted his help to counter 65 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results.
Last August, Elias left his partnership at Perkins Coie to launch his own law firm: the Elias Law Group. He took 10 partners with him.
A month later, a federal grand jury indicted Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman for making false statements to the FBI concerning alleged communications between Trump and Russia. In a 48-page motion last month to admit additional evidence, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Sussman attempted to manipulate the FBI to advance the interests of his client, the Clinton campaign, by giving then-FBI general counsel James Baker information that Trump was colluding with Russia based on alleged internet server communications between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa-Bank. Sussman’s indictment noted that he billed the Clinton campaign for time spent drafting the document given to Baker.
Then, the DOJ alleged that Sussman turned around and ordered Steele to create reports about the Alfa-Bank communications. After that, the DOJ alleged that Sussman and Fusion GPS employees presented their information to media.
Sussman wasn’t one of the 10 partners that Elias recruited for his law firm.
In January, Elias testified in Sussman’s case. In February, Sussman asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to dismiss the case; Cooper denied the request last month. The trial is scheduled for May 16. At the pretrial hearing, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
While Sussman was dealing with the fallout of Russiagate, his former employer and Elias moved onto other controversial clients.
According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Black Lives Matter PAC paid the Elias Law Group nearly $8,000 for legal services and Perkins Coie over $8,000 for compliance services from January through March. Black Lives Matter came under scrutiny over the last year for its use of millions in donations to purchase mansions.
As for the DOJ case against Sussman, Elias and other top Clinton officials are fighting to keep the work done by Fusion GPS under wraps, claiming that it qualified for the confidentiality required of legal work.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 1, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
With the help of Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax lawyer Marc Elias, the Phoenix-based Latino activist organization Mi Familia Vota filed a lawsuit Thursday to challenge Arizona’s newly-enacted law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Republican legislators and Governor Doug Ducey have reiterated that the legislation, HB2492, doesn’t apply retroactively to Arizonans who registered to vote without providing proof of citizenship before 2004, meaning those individuals won’t have to re-register to vote. There’s contention to that provision in question: opponents of the law argue that the new definition of a qualified voter requires all registered voters to have submitted proof of citizenship.
The complaint filed by Elias on behalf of Mi Familia Vota alleged that HB2492 was “confusing, discriminatory, and unconstitutional,” as well as “voter suppression,” claiming it would prevent those already registered without proof of citizenship from voting. The complaint also claimed that HB2492 shared the same faults as Proposition 200, a voter-approved initiative in 2004 that required county recorders to reject any application for registration that didn’t include satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down Proposition 200, ruling that it was a violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) which doesn’t require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. However, as Arizona Free Enterprise Deputy Director Greg Blackie explained during the State Senate hearing of the bill, this law was designed to fall within the bounds of SCOTUS precedent because the NVRA doesn’t prohibit states from denying registration if there’s proof that the applicant isn’t a citizen.
Mi Familia Vota’s complaint further insisted that the new law would undermine early mail-in voting, due to the fact that it would negate the ease of voting provided by that method. The complaint also claimed that around 200,000 registered voters would have to locate and present proof of citizenship in order to vote. For that claim, the complaint cited an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic, which didn’t make a definitive claim that those voters would be scrutinized.
“If you registered to vote in Arizona before 2004 and never provided proof that you’re a U.S. citizen — a number that includes close to 200,000 voters who got their driver’s licenses before October 1, 1996, in the days before proof of citizenship was required — you, too, could be suspect. In the eyes of the GOP-run Arizona legislature, that is,” stated the article. [emphasis added]
Setting aside the potential difficulties presented to voters, the complaint argued that Arizona had no compelling interest to justify requiring proof of citizenship of its voters. It claimed that the lack of proof of non-citizens who’d voted proved that point.
In terms of requested relief, the complaint asked the court to find the new law to be in violation of the rights to vote and due process as outlined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
