USA Today: Arizona voters can be required to show identification before casting their ballots, but they don't have to prove U.S. citizenship to register, a federal appeals court ruled today, Reuters reports.
The ruling (pdf), by an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the District Court in Arizona on the issue of showing identification to vote but overturned it regarding proving citizenship to register. Both measures were contained in Proposition 200, passed by Arizona voters in 2004.
Groups representing Latinos, American Indians and women had challenged Prop. 200, arguing that the ID requirement violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Phoenix New Times notes.
The plaintiffs argued that because the state charges for official photo identification, the requirement amounted to a "poll tax" that discriminated against poor people. The appellate court rejected that argument.
Requiring voters to provide documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay to obtain the documents. On the contrary, such a requirement falls squarely within the state's power to fix core voter qualifications. ...
In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200's polling place provision is related to the state's legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In a dissent, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that the ID provision discriminates against Latinos:
History has also shown that when a Latino voter approaches the polling place but is stopped by a person perceived to be an authority figure checking for identification, there's something intimidating about that experience that evokes fear of discrimination. This intimidation has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls.
The plaintiffs can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regarding Prop. 200's requirement that "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship was necessary to register to vote, the 9th Circuit ruled that the National Voting Rights Act superseded the Arizona law.
In October, a three-judge appellate panel struck down the citizenship requirement.
The ruling (pdf), by an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the District Court in Arizona on the issue of showing identification to vote but overturned it regarding proving citizenship to register. Both measures were contained in Proposition 200, passed by Arizona voters in 2004.
Groups representing Latinos, American Indians and women had challenged Prop. 200, arguing that the ID requirement violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Phoenix New Times notes.
The plaintiffs argued that because the state charges for official photo identification, the requirement amounted to a "poll tax" that discriminated against poor people. The appellate court rejected that argument.
Requiring voters to provide documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay to obtain the documents. On the contrary, such a requirement falls squarely within the state's power to fix core voter qualifications. ...
In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200's polling place provision is related to the state's legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In a dissent, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that the ID provision discriminates against Latinos:
History has also shown that when a Latino voter approaches the polling place but is stopped by a person perceived to be an authority figure checking for identification, there's something intimidating about that experience that evokes fear of discrimination. This intimidation has the effect of keeping Latino voters away from the polls.
The plaintiffs can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regarding Prop. 200's requirement that "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship was necessary to register to vote, the 9th Circuit ruled that the National Voting Rights Act superseded the Arizona law.
In October, a three-judge appellate panel struck down the citizenship requirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment