It is now very obvious that the left and liberal media’s commitment to false and hyperbolic rhetoric regarding election bills in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere is not about policy but rather demonizing Republicans. But the jig is up. Characterizing every Republican-led effort to implement reasonable election reforms as “Jim Crow 2.0” (laws that legalized racial segregation) is not only offensive, it is lazy, hypocritical, and getting very tiresome.
For example, SB 1106, sponsored by Senator Mesnard, would require county recorders, upon confirmation that a voter has registered in another county or state, to cancel that voter’s registration. Additionally, the bill would classify the action of aiding someone who is registered in another state in voting in Arizona as a class 5 felony.
Senator Quezada, a Democrat representing legislative district 29, tweeted out that Governor Ducey needs to veto SB1106 along with SB1485 and SB1713 or we might lose our Super Bowl in 2023, similar to how the MLB pulled out of Georgia for what Sen. Quezada refers to as “voter suppression laws.”
And the Pima County Democratic Party tweeted Governor Ducey, calling on him to veto SB1106 with the hashtags #JimCrowAZ and #RacistVoterSuppression.
But is canceling the registration of a voter who has moved to another state really “Jim Crow 2.0”?
Over the weekend we highlighted some provisions in Kentucky’s HB 574 that are being referred to as “expanding voting access” there, but “Jim Crow” here in Arizona. One of those was a requirement nearly identical to what is proposed in SB1106. We’ll wait for Sen. Quezada and the Pima County Democratic Party to condemn the 25 Democrats in the Kentucky House, 8 Democrats in the Kentucky Senate, and the Democrat Governor who all supported it.
A statutory procedure to ensure people aren’t voting in multiple states is common practice around the country and simply commonsense.
For example, let’s look at the democrat stronghold and home state of President Joe Biden, Delaware. There, the State Board of Elections, at any duly called meeting, may consider the cancellation of voter registrations if a member has a “valid reason to believe” the voter is no longer a qualified elector (§ 1702).
They even allow for the cancellation of a voter’s registration if the voter’s spouse, adult child, sibling, or parent sends a written notice that the voter has moved out of state (§ 1707). Don’t like the way your parent votes? No worries. Just send a letter to their county and get their registration canceled.
Colorado, a bastion of liberalism, also criminalizes voting for non-residents (§ 228) with a class 6 felony. Colorado also has a similar provision as SB1106 (§ 604) outlining the process (§ 605) for canceling the registration of electors registered in multiple jurisdictions. Oregon too, allows the cancellation of elector registrations, “if the county clerk receives written evidence that the elector has registered to vote in another county in this state or in another state” (§ 555).
And since former President Obama took to twitter in support of the Georgia boycott, we’ll turn our eyes to a state he represented in the U.S. Senate, Illinois. There, a voter’s registration is canceled for simply not voting in the last four years and failing to respond to a notice within 30 days (§ 5-24). County clerks are also required to verify voter registrations every 2 years and cancel the registrations of any voter no longer qualified (§ 5-25).
SB1106 is not “Jim Crow” or “voter suppression.” States around the country, including the left’s beloved blue strongholds, have reasonable measures in place to ensure they maintain a clean and current voter registration database. If the left really believes this policy is “voter suppression” then their position must simply be this: voter suppression for me, but not for thee.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting economic prosperity and a strong and vibrant Arizona economy.
This past week in Kentucky, HB 574 was signed into law. Despite the Kentucky legislature consisting of Republican supermajorities in both the House and Senate, the account for Democratic Governors tweeted, “While Republicans like @BrianKempGA are implementing Jim Crow 2.0, yet another Democratic governor just expanded voting rights…”
And the corporate media picked up this talking point with headlines such as “Kentucky Gov. Beshear signs into law bipartisan elections bill expanding voting access” from CNN, “Why Kentucky Just Became the Only Red State to Expand Voting Rights” from the New York Times, and “Democratic Governor in deep-red Kentucky signs bill to expand voting, bucking national trend” from the Washington Post.
Meanwhile, here in Arizona the headlines read “Arizona Republican lawmakers join GOP efforts to target voting, with nearly two dozen restrictive voting measures” under a bold “Voting Rights Under Attack” from CNN, “The next Georgia: Texas and Arizona emerge as voting rights battlegrounds” from the Guardian, and “23 voter suppression bills in Arizona legislature” from KOLD.
Let’s take a look at what the left and liberal media consider “Jim Crow 2.0” in Arizona compared to what they applaud as “expanding voting access” in Kentucky.
Early Voting
In Arizona, early voting begins 27 days before an election.
Under the Kentucky bill, early voting is limited to a mere 3 days: Thursday, Friday, and Saturday during normal business hours (Section 11).
Ballot Harvesting
In 2016, HB2023, which prohibited ballot harvesting, was signed into Arizona law. The Democrat party sued the state over it, claiming it has a disparate impact on minority voters. The case is currently in the Supreme Court.
Under the Kentucky bill, ballot harvesting is prohibited (Section 6).
Vote By Mail/SB1485
In Arizona, no excuse is required to vote by mail and voters can register to automatically receive a ballot for every single election, without having to reapply. SB1485 would remove a voter from this list only after the voter failed to vote in four consecutive elections and fails to respond to a notice. The voter would still be registered, they would just no longer receive a ballot in the mail automatically.
Under the Kentucky bill, an excuse is required to vote absentee and voters must apply within a short window of no earlier than 45 days before an election and no later than 14 days before an election (Section 11).
SB1003
In Arizona, SB1003 clarifies that if a ballot does not have a signature, the county must attempt to contact the voter and if a signature is not obtained by 7PM on election day, it is rejected.
Under the Kentucky bill, an absentee ballot must immediately be rejected if it has no signature (Section 14).
Voter Registration/SB1106
In Arizona, SB1106 would require a county recorder to cancel a voter’s registration upon confirmation the voter has registered in another county or state.
Under the Kentucky bill, a voter’s registration must immediately be canceled upon notification the voter has registered in another county or state (Section 5).
Voter ID/SB1713
In Arizona, voters on the early voter list automatically receive a ballot by mail for every election and do not have to reapply every time. SB1713 requires voters to write their date of birth and either their Arizona driver’s license or voter registration number on their ballot affidavit.
Under the Kentucky bill, a photo ID is required for voting in person and must be provided in the application for an absentee ballot, an application that must be made before every election (Section 41).
Catching the theme? All of these provisions leave Kentucky with a more restrictive election system than Arizona. If proposals in the Arizona Legislature are “Jim Crow 2.0” in the eyes of the democrats and media, then Kentucky would surely be “Jim Crow on steroids.”
If we have learned anything from Kentucky’s passage of HB574, it is that according to the leftist media, election integrity reforms are racist and disenfranchisement when Republicans pass them, but an “expansion of voter access” when a Democrat Governor signs on.
In reality, all of the bills Arizona is considering leave intact the many accessible options available to voters with modest reforms to ensure the integrity of each. They ensure it is simple to register, easy to vote, and hard to cheat, priorities Kentucky’s new law also ensure.
