Arizona

The Arizonans for Fair Elections Initiative: Democrats’ Turn to Direct Democracy

Election Law Society · March 1, 2023 ·

By Wade Erwin

In a state that some refer to as the “center of the fight to make voting harder,” the Arizona Supreme Court recently barred a ballot initiative that would have struck down GOP-backed election laws and practices. The court found that the Arizonans for Fair Elections ballot initiative, also known as the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act, fell 1,458 signatures short of the threshold requirement for the general election ballot. Although the failed proposal cannot appear on the November 2022 ballot, the Arizonans for Fair Elections initiative evinces the tensions between Republican legislators pushing for more restrictive voting laws and the progressive interest groups who oppose these sweeping changes to Arizona’s election laws.

The Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections initiative typifies the divide between grassroots progressive organizations in Arizona and the state’s Republican General Assembly. Created as “a direct response to the Legislature,” the initiative illustrates Democrats’ turn to direct democracy to counteract the torrent of conservative voting laws. Republican members in the General Assembly viewed the initiative as such, with a Scottsdale representative arguing that “[t]hey can’t win at the Legislature so they’re going to go to the ballot and mislead the public.”

Proposed by organizations like the Arizona Democracy Resource Center, the Arizonans for Fair Elections initiative contained a variety of provisions designed to substantially alter Arizona’s election and campaign finance laws. The changes proposed under the Act included:

adopting same-day registration at polling places;
automatically registering those who obtain state identification cards to vote;
substantially reducing contribution limits from $6,250 to $1,000 for local or legislative offices or $2,500 for those running for statewide office; and
outlawing unofficial election audits.

The initiative represented an attempt by Democrats to push back against the flood of restrictive voting laws passed by the Arizona legislature in the wake of the 2020 election. More election interference bills were introduced by the state’s general assembly in 2022 than anywhere else in the country. While Arizona’s newest voter identification law garnered most of the national attention, legislators also introduced bills to limit the availability of mail ballot drop boxes and to expand faulty purge practices. The volume and breadth of these electoral regulations have made Arizona the epicenter for the debate over voting regulations today.

However, voters needed to qualify the initiative before they could vote for it on election day. Arizona state law requires that proposed initiatives amass 237,645 valid signatures by early July to earn a spot on the November ballot. Coalition groups aligned with Democrats collected an estimated 475,000 signatures before submitting it to the Maricopa County Superior Court. Although the trial court initially ruled that the initiative satisfied the signature requirement, conservative groups challenged the lower court’s methodology. The Arizona Supreme Court stated that it couldn’t verify the signature total and issued an order requiring the Superior Court to re-evaluate the count. After removing invalid and duplicate signatures, the Superior Court found that the initiative fell 1,458 signatures short of the statutory threshold. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision and barred the initiative from appearing on election day.

While voters won’t have a chance to weigh in on the Arizonans for Fair Elections initiative in November, the general election carries significant implications for voting rights in Arizona. With restrictive voter identification initiatives on the ballot, interested parties should continue to monitor November’s election.

Arizona’s Newest Proof-of-Citizenship Law is Potentially Unconstitutional (Again)

Election Law Society · January 11, 2023 ·

By Sarah Bradley

Arizona has a well-known history of stringent anti-immigration laws and policies, from the widely covered “show me your papers” law—at the time, the strictest anti-immigration law in the country—to more recent busing of migrants to D.C., following Texas’s lead. In its most recent session, the state legislature has followed this trend, passing a law that echoes an attempt in 2004 that was later struck down.

On March 30, 2022, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2492 into law, jeopardizing the voter registrations of tens of thousands of state residents. HB 2492 requires voters to demonstrate proof of citizenship at registration or within 30 days of registering to vote, despite opposing Supreme Court precedent.

In 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200, a highly restrictive anti-immigration law which included a provision requiring voters to present proof of citizenship. After multiple legal challenges, the Supreme Court eventually struck down the proof of citizenship requirement for federal elections. In 2013, the Court heard Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ruling that the state could not impose this requirement on voters who use a federal voter registration form. A federal voter registration form, required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, is prepared by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and allows registrants to vote in national elections. “Federal-only” voters are not required to provide proof of citizenship (some states may require proof of identification, a much lower burden). In response to this ruling, the Arizona legislature bifurcated the state’s voting system and imposed the proof-of-citizenship requirement on state and local elections. There are currently around 31,500 federal-only voters in Arizona.

The NAACP, in an amicus brieffiled regarding Arizona v. ITC, noted that throughout the tenure of Proposition 200, Arizona found no instances in which an undocumented immigrant registered or voted in the state, yet rejected the registration applications of over 30,000 residents, with a disparate impact on the Latino population. HB 2492 is poised to have an even more destructive impact on voting access beyond the federal-only voters.

Critics of HB 2492 have argued that the new law would cause thousands of previously registered voters to lose their access to the polls. Proposition 200 included language that grandfathered in previously registered voters, but HB 2492 would supersede the old law and would retroactively apply the citizenship requirements. Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for the ACLU of Arizona, told the state Senate Government Committee prior to the passage that “thousands of eligible voters could lose access to the polls based on specific and targeted criteria. This bill singles out older voters, on average, and people who have lived in Arizona for a longer amount of time.” Additionally, proof of citizenship laws have historically had a discriminatory effect on communities of color.

Estimates of the numbers of voters losing access to the polls are as high as 192,000, the number of residents who were issued a driver’s license prior to 1996 and have not altered it since, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation. In 1996, the state began requiring drivers to provide proof of their lawful presence in the United States, and a license is one of very few ways that a resident may prove citizenship.

Governor Ducey, in his defense of the bill, cited the high number of federal-only voters in the 2020 election—over 11,600—as evidence of its necessity to prevent election fraud. The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Jake Hoffman, claimed that it was necessary to protect elections from foreign interference. Hoffman supported former President Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen and was one of the 84 people to act as a fake elector for Trump. He also runs a marketing firm that was banned from Facebook for engaging in “coordinated inauthentic behavior”, running a “troll farm” that advocated right-wing opinions on social media, including the claim that mail-in ballots would lead to fraud. Hoffman’s personal Twitter account was suspended prior to the 2020 election.

In July, the Department of Justice filed suit against the state, claiming that HB 2492 violates both Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, called HB 2492 “a law that turns the clock back, by imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements that would block eligible voters from the registration rolls for certain federal elections.” Clarke added that the DOJ “will continue to use all of the tools provided by federal law . . . to . . . protect every qualified American seeking to participate in our democracy.”

There have also been a number of other suits filed by various interest groups. If any of these suits reach the Supreme Court, the bill may be upheld, as it faces a very different Court than in 2013. Arizona Republican legislators have called the bill “a fight worth having,” and Governor Ducey invited potential challengers on the left to “have at it.”

HB 2492 is currently slated to go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Virginia’s New Election Integrity Unit and How It Can Learn from the Success, or Lack Thereof, of its Arizona Equivalent

Election Law Society · December 2, 2022 ·

By Noble Pearson

On September 9, 2022, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares announced the creation of a new Election Integrity Unit (EIU) in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to “investigate and prosecute violations of Virginia election law” and “to ensure legality and purity in elections.” This new team, made up of more than 20 attorneys, investigators, and paralegals from the OAG reportedly requires no new funds and aims to increase confidence in Virginia’s elections. While in a vacuum increased election security is desirable, this announcement comes against the backdrop of persistent mistrust of elections, especially from contingents of Republican support, stemming from conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential election. Democrats in Virginia quickly criticized the move as embracing lies, and Scott Surovell of the Virginia Senate joked that next Miyares would create a “Ghost Busting Unit that will hunt for ghosts and ghouls across the Commonwealth.” Jokes aside, questions remain about how an EIU might function and what, if any, success the people of Virginia can expect. To help answer that question, let us turn our attention to another state, Arizona, which created a similar unit not long ago.

In 2019, the Arizona Legislature appropriated $530,000 to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to begin an EIU with four full time employees. It was created under similar circumstances to its Virginia counterpart, as it followed 2018 midterm elections that saw major wins for Democrats in Arizona that led then-President Trump to comment that ballots had appeared “out of the wilderness” for Democrat Kyrsten Sinema who beat Trump-endorsed Republican Martha McSally in the U.S. Senate race. Critics claimed the EIU was simply a response by the Republican legislature to Democrat successes and that it was designed to help enforce laws limiting voter participation. The pertinent question for Virginia is, with such a backdrop of partisan disagreement and criticism, has the Arizona EIU been successful in protecting Arizona elections since 2019?

To answer this question, a good place to start is the website for the Arizona OAG, which contains basic information about its EIU, including a link to a full list of AGO criminal prosecutions related to voter fraud since 2010. This list contains thirty-six cases of prosecutions, twenty of which dated 2019 or later. Reasons for these prosecutions vary, from State v. Tracey Kay McKee, which involved illegal mailing of a dead relative’s ballot, to State v. Kenneth Russell Nelson, involving an inmate illegally voting while in Pima County Jail. From a neutral perspective, while there have been some minor cases of voter fraud prosecuted, it is unclear that the Arizona EIU should be considered a success.

Recent critics looking back at the three years of the Arizona EIU suggest that there has been only a minor increase in prosecutions, with sixteen voter fraud cases prosecuted in the six years before the EIU and only twenty prosecuted in the three years since its creation. They point to the fact that after investigating thousands of cases with a renewed focus on voter fraud, only twenty cases have been prosecuted by the OAG in a state of more than four million voters. Supporters, though, point to the fact that the group is fulfilling its mission of supporting a fair election process. But what does this all mean for Virginia?

First, it is clear that Virginia’s EIU is driven by a distrust of elections, particularly in the Republican Party, much like the context that led to Arizona’s EIU. There are differences, though. Arizona’s EIU was legislatively created with its own budget of around $500,000, while the Virginia EIU stems from a decision by AG Miyares and reportedly will require no additional funding. Arizona’s EIU contained only four members, while Virginia’s will be comprised of a group of more than twenty. Without a doubt, questions remain about the implementation of the Virginia EIU. In Arizona, a four-person team managed to prosecute twenty cases in three years on a limited budget; can a bigger team in Virginia that is not receiving any new funding be expected to better that output? Even if it did, are there any discernable benchmarks for success? None seem to have been announced so far. The bottom line from Arizona is that an EIU without measurable goals and only an uncertain vision of making voting fairer has achieved only lackluster results and faint party line support. Regardless of the context behind its creation, the Virginia EIU would do well to learn from the mixed results in Arizona to better enable its own success. Otherwise, Virginia can expect a handful of minor voter fraud prosecutions and no tangible increase in public perception of election security, nothing more.

Arizona Proposition 309 puts more stringent voter ID and mail-in requirements on ballot

Election Law Society · November 7, 2022 ·

By Sarah Bradley

Proposition 309, the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act,” is on the ballot this November. Proposition 309 includes provisionsthat would affect the state’s voter identification laws and add additional requirements to mail-in voting affidavits. Proponents have stated that it will increase election security, while opponents have expressed worry about its effect on voter participation.

Arizona has allowed no-excuse mail-in voting since 1991, and—until recently—it has had significant bipartisan support. In 2007, the state legislature created the Permanent Early Voting List, which automatically sends a mail-in ballot for every election to every voter who opted in. 75% of Arizona voters are currently on the list. Early voting by mail is the most popular way to vote in Arizona, regularly used by more than 80% of Arizona voters. However, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, there has been a significant push to restrict, or even eliminate, mail-in voting in the state.

Proposition 309 adds additional requirements to the affidavit that mail-in voters must submit with their ballots. The affidavit would require the voter to provide an “early voter identification” number, their date of birth, and their signature. The early voter ID number can be (a) the voter’s driver’s license or nonoperating license ID number, (b) the last four digits of the voter’s social security number, or (c) the voter’s ID number from the statewide voter registration database. Current law only requires the individual to sign the affidavit. Election officials are currently required to confirm the signature and contact the voter regarding any inconsistencies. Proposition 309 would further require confirmation of the early voter ID number and date of birth.

Supporters of Proposition 309’s mail-in voting measures state that the current signature-only requirement is a critical vulnerability in the state’s mail-in voting system, and that the new addition creates parity between in-person and mail-in voters. They argue that the current system is overly permissive, allowing ballot harvesting and trafficking.

Detractors of the mail-in voting measures criticize them as being an invasion of privacy that would eliminate votes and drastically increase the time needed to verify ballots. They point out that the early voter ID number requirement prevents the ability to vote anonymously by linking the individual to their ballot, and that providing personal information increases opportunities for identity theft. Critics also highlight the likelihood that a high number of ballots would be discarded when returned without a completed affidavit, comparing Proposition 309 to a similar Texas law that caused about 13% of ballots—nearly 23,000 votes—to be thrown out in the state’s primary election earlier this year.

The Arizona Advisor Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has previously criticized the state’s current in-person voter ID requirements for being unnecessarily restrictive, but Proposition 309 would tighten the laws even further. The current law requires voters to present either a photo ID that includes their name and address, or a combination of two alternate forms of identification without photos, such as utility or credit card bills. Proposition 309 would require all in-person voters to present a photo ID in the form of an Arizona driver’s license or nonoperating identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification issued by a tribal government, or a US government-issued ID—removing the provision that currently allows voters to present any state or local government-issued photo ID, such as municipal or student IDs, that include the voter’s name, photo, and address. The name and address of the voter on the ID must match the name and address in the voting precinct register. If the address on the photo ID does not match, or if the ID is a US military ID card or a valid passport without an address, the voter must also present an additional document containing the name and address of the voter.

Supporters of the additional photo ID restrictions argue that photo identification is already required in daily life, calling it a commonsense measure that would increase voter confidence. They have also pointed to the provision in the bill that allows a fee waiver for individuals obtaining a nonoperating license to meet photo ID requirements as proof that the requirement will not be overly burdensome.

Critics have stated that the ID requirements in place are already satisfactory, and that Proposition 309’s photo ID requirement only limits access to marginalized communities. Strict voter ID laws have been shown to impede millions of eligible voters nationally from accessing the polls, with a disproportionate impact on minorities, senior citizens, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

Supporters include all Arizona Republican lawmakers, Heritage Action (an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation), the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.

The Arizona County Recorders have opposed Proposition 309, calling it a solution in search of a problem. Other opponents include the Arizona Education Association, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and the Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits, which represents more than 1,100 nonprofit organizations.

Prop 309 Sample Ballot (source: Arizona Secretary of State website)

Beyond Brnovich – How an Arizona Voting Rights Case Will Have Sweeping Consequences

Election Law Society · March 11, 2022 ·

By: Mike Arnone

In July, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, arguably its most significant voting rights decision since Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. Two Arizona election restrictions were at issue in Brnovich, but the Court’s holding will have far-reaching consequences beyond the Grand Canyon State.

The restrictions at the heart of Brnovich prohibited out-of-precinct ballots from being counted and criminalized the collection of ballots for delivery to polling places, a common practice sometimes called “ballot harvesting.” In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court upheld both provisions under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The majority ruled that Section Two of the VRA could only be used to invalidate voting restrictions that place “substantial and disproportionate burdens on minority voters.” Because Arizona provided multiple ways to vote, “any burden associated with one option cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.” Burdens on voting, then, must be evaluated by the totality of the circumstances.