Arizona is the epicenter of the fight for voting rights today. That’s what some are saying about our state. At least our president hasn’t bestowed us with a Jim Crow badge yet.
To be sure, there are many things wrong with the Arizona state election system. We seem to be repeating the same mistakes over and over. But fixing them requires more than finger-pointing and lawsuits between political parties. The issues need to be addressed individually, like eating an elephant and donkeys; it can’t be done in one sitting.
This is the third in a series of blogs to examine these issues. But this is more appropriately titled, What the Federal Government thinks is wrong with the Arizona state election system.
DPOC (Documented Proof of Citizenship)
In 1993 Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), aka the Motor Voter Law. Its primary purpose was “to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.”
A National Mail Voter Registration Form was introduced (in 21 different languages no less) along with links to state-specific instructions that must be followed by U.S. citizens registering to vote. The form requires the applicant to swear/affirm their U.S. citizen status under penalty of perjury. The person providing false information could be “fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”
There is no requirement that a person proves their citizenship to vote in Federal Elections; it’s strictly an honor system
In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 200, the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. It created the requirement that “the county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” The Election Assistance Commission responded that Arizona can do what it wants for state elections but “may not apply the scheme to registrants using the Federal Registration Form.”
In 2005 Arizona was sued by three sets of plaintiffs, challenging the law because it limits Native American and Latino citizens’ ability to obtain proper U.S. citizenship documents. The case bounced up and down the courts for several years until the Supreme Court struck it down in 2013. Arizona now has two conflicting voting laws to deal with.
So Arizona instituted a two-track voting system for the 2014 elections. Voters registered with federal registration forms could only vote in national elections. In contrast, those who used state forms and showed proof of citizenship would be allowed to vote in federal, state, and local contests.
But again, Arizona was sued in 2017 by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). The suit alleged that “at least 26,000 voters in Maricopa County alone have been disenfranchised by these policies.”
The issue has become so complicated that it is hard to explain without resorting to legal mumbo-jumbo that only the 1.3 million lawyers in this country understand.
But nevertheless, “In 2018, over 1,700 individuals who voted in elections for federal office had not provided DPOC. In 2020, the first election with the 2017 Consent Decree in effect, that number grew to more than 11,600. Now, more than 36,000 individuals are registered to vote in elections for federal office, yet they have never provided DPOC. To contextualize these numbers, the 2020 statewide margin of victory for the Presidential election in Arizona was 10,457 votes.”
But another solution will go into effect on January 1, 2023. Arizona HB2492 states that voters for federal office will no longer have to provide proof of citizenship. It lifts this burden from those potential voters and shifts them to the election officials. They will check their status using several databases and be criminally liable if they fail to weed out an illegal applicant.
The Justice Department wasted no time in filing another lawsuit. Can’t wait to see how this turns out leading up to the next general election.
