Arizona Proposition 200 (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act," was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires: (a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; (b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and (c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.

Authors of the ballot measure, the "Protect Arizona Now" committee, wrote it because of a serious concern for lax voter registration and voting procedures and concerns that public services to immigrants from neighboring Mexico, many of whom are illegal immigrants, were too costly.

Opponents called it anti-immigrant, and considered it to be reminiscent of California's 1994 Proposition 187.

Proponents[edit]

Two separate, rival groups supported Proposition 200. The first group was the proposition's sponsor, the Protect Arizona Now (PAN) committee, led by Kathy McKee and supported at the national level by the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (PEB). The second group was the Yes on 200 committee, led by Rusty Childress, a Phoenix-area car dealer, and supported at the national level by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).[citation needed] There was a split within PAN, which McKee described as an "attempted hijacking of a local effort by greedy, out-of-state interests"; this split highlighted an ongoing feud within the immigration reduction movement between FAIR and the other two groups dating back to at least 2003, with CCN and PEB issuing frequent statements accusing FAIR (as well as NumbersUSA) of being "reform lite" and "undermining real immigration reform."[citation needed]

PAN was formed by McKee and Childress, who became its chair and treasurer, respectively. The PAN National Advisory Board was chaired by Dr. Virginia Abernethy, and included Dr. David Pimentel and Marvin Gregory. Childress later joined a separate effort, Yes On 200, organized by FAIR.[citation needed]

During the signature gathering campaign, McKee accused Childress of withholding funds and petitions from PAN and fired him. Childress sued McKee over custody of PAN's signatures and funds, but the court ruled in favor of McKee. Childress and the two most prominent supporters of the initiative within the Arizona state legislature, Russell Pearce and Randy Graf, then formed a separate organization, Yes On 200, which was funded almost entirely by out-of-state interests.[citation needed]

When FAIR began an independent signature gathering campaign to collect the remaining signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot, McKee accused FAIR of attempting a hostile takeover of PAN.[citation needed] When McKee named Abernethy, an avowed "ethnic separatist," as the chair of PAN's national advisory board, FAIR responded by issuing a press release calling for both McKee and Abernethy to resign from PAN and saying that Abernethy's views were "repugnant, divisive and do not represent the views of the vast majority of Arizonans who support Proposition 200." Abernethy's appointment drew harsh criticism from an anti-bigotry group based in Chicago, which noted her "leadership roles in other extremist organizations," such as the The Occidental Quarterly and the Council of Conservative Citizens.[1]

Campaign[edit]

On July 5, 2004, Protect Arizona NOW's Chairman, Kathy McKee, pursuant to Arizona law, submitted 190,887 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's office, surprising critics, who had believed organizers would not be able to garner enough signatures before the deadline.[citation needed] A counter-organization, the Statue of Liberty Coalition, was formed to block Proposition 200, claiming the initiative was racist and would violate Latino civil rights.[citation needed] Opposition to Proposition 200 was bipartisan, including Senator John McCain (R), Senator Jon Kyl (R), Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the Arizona Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the AFL-CIO.[2] Tamar Jacoby, a writer on immigration-related issues in articles for The Wall Street Journal[3] and the Los Angeles Times.[4]

Supporters partly relied for justification on a 2004 FAIR study that estimated that Arizona taxpayers were annually paying $1 billion to cover the education, uncompensated health care, and incarceration costs of illegal immigration, net of the taxes paid by the illegal immigrants.[5] This study appeared to contradict a 2003 study performed by a team at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and sponsored by Wells Fargo and the Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, which estimated that immigrants were annually contributing $318 million more in income and sales taxes than they were costing the state in services and uncompensated health care.[6] However, it was not clear whether that estimate was based on all immigrants or only illegal immigrants.

In November 2004, the electorate passed Proposition 200, with 56% of voters voting in the affirmative.[7] Exit polls found that 47% of Latino voters voted in favor of the initiative.[8]

Implementation[edit]

A substantial legal battle erupted over the precise definition of "public benefits." Arizona's Attorney General ruled that the law pertains to only discretionary state programs. Federally funded entitlements like food stamps and subsidized school lunches are examples of public benefits to which, given the Attorney General's finding, the new law would not apply. PAN interpreted the proposition to apply the welfare portion of the initiative to the nearly 60 programs contained in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 46, "Welfare."

Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, at least one lawsuit related to Proposition 200 is still pending. "Yes on 200" filed a post-election lawsuit, initially dismissed in the lower court but currently on appeal, saying that the Attorney General overstepped his bounds when he narrowed the definition of "public benefits."

On December 23, 2004, the federal appeals court in Tucson, Arizona removed an earlier restraining order that had kept the state from implementing the law. The entire law, with one exception, is in effect, using the definition of "public benefits" promulgated by the Governor and Attorney General. State, county, and city workers may be fined up to $700 for each instance in which they provide such benefits to persons who cannot produce evidence of citizenship.

Kathy McKee has since started a new group, Protect America NOW, to support similar initiatives in other states.

Voter registration and identification at the polls[edit]

Proposition 200 required, among other things, proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter identification at the polling place. No major elections took place after its adoption before November 7, 2006, and the actual implementation of these two provisions of the proposition remained unclear. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of these requirements upon voters, arguing that such a law could be used to discriminate against ethnic groups, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

On October 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily suspended these requirements, a little over a month before the election.[9] However, the ruling was stayed fifteen days later by the U.S. Supreme Court.[10][11]

In October 2010, the Ninth Circuit held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid.[12] However, in April 2011, the court granted Arizona's petition for en banc review of this ruling, and it heard oral arguments on June 21, 2011.[13]

In April 2012, the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid.[14] The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012.[15]

In July 2012, Arizona submitted to the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the state's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA.[16] The Court granted the petition in October 2012,[17] and it heard oral arguments on March 18, 2013.[18] On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 7-2 vote with Justice Antonin Scalia delivering the Court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA.[19]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Migrant Foe Tied to Racism, East Valley Tribune (Tempe, AZ), August 16, 2004 (updated October 6, 2011)
  2. ^ About.com Guide: Protect Arizona Now, Judy Hedding, August 23, 2004
  3. ^ Jacoby, Tamar. "Flawed proposition". The Wall Street Journal: September 16, 2004.
  4. ^ Anti-Immigrant Fever in Arizona, Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2004
  5. ^ The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans, FAIR, 2004
  6. ^ The Economic Impact of Arizona-Mexico Relationship, Thunderbird School of Global Management, Wells Fargo, and Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, 2003
  7. ^ CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures
  8. ^ CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures / Arizona Proposition 200 / Exit Poll
  9. ^ AZ Secretary of State - Press Release: Sec. of State Brewer Expresses Concern and Alarm over Court Decision
  10. ^ AZ Secretary of State - Press Release: Sec. of State Brewer Gets ID at Polls Reinstated
  11. ^ Purcell v. Gonzalez, On Applications of Stay, 549 U. S. 1 (October 20, 2006)(U.S. Supreme Court)
  12. ^ Gonzales v. Arizona, No. 08-17094, (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2010)
  13. ^ Arizona Attorney General Press Release: "Horne Argues in Favor of Arizona's Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote"
  14. ^ Gonzales v. Arizona, No. 08-17094 (en banc), (9th Cir. April 17, 2012) at 4148.
  15. ^ Arizona, et al. v. Abeytia, et al., No. 11-A-1189 (order), (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012)
  16. ^ Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et. al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, July 16, 2012)
  17. ^ Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, Grant of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, October 15, 2012)
  18. ^ Arizona, et. al., Petitioners, v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Transcript of Oral Argument (U.S. Supreme Court, March 18, 2013)
  19. ^ Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., No. 12-71 (opinion), (U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 2013)

External links[edit]