2004 Arizona Proposition 200
| Elections in Arizona |
|---|
 |
Proposition 200, an Arizona state initiative passed in November 2004 with 56% of the vote, requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may register to vote or apply for public benefits in Arizona. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report persons unable to produce documentation of citizenship who apply for these benefits, and allows citizens who believe that public officials have given undocumented persons benefits to sue for remedies. 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
Despite a huge effort by political leadership on both sides of the aisle to defeat it, the electorate passed Proposition 200 with 56 percent of voters voting in the affirmative. Opposition to Prop 200 was bipartisan: Senator John McCain (R), Senator Jon Kyl (R), Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the Arizona Republican Party, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the AFL-CIO, and other elected officials and organizations were all opposed to Protect Arizona Now. [3] Meanwhile, the Big-Business op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, opposed Prop. 200. [4] Tamar Jacoby, a business interest supporter opposed Prop. 200 in the Los Angeles Times. [5]
Two separate, rival groups supported Proposition 200: Prop 200's sponsor "Protect Arizona Now" led by Kathy McKee and supported at the national level by the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (PEB), and "Yes on 200" led by Rusty Childress and supported at the national level by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The split within PAN, which McKee described as an "attempted hijacking of a local effort by greedy, out-of-state interests", highlighted an ongoing feud within the immigration reduction movement between FAIR and the two national groups which dates 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".
The Protect Arizona Now committee was formed by Kathy McKee and Rusty 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 the (FAIR).
During the signature gathering campaign, Kathy McKee accused Rusty Childress, a Phoenix-area car dealer and PAN's treasurer, of withholding funds and petitions from PAN, and fired Childress. 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. 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. McKee named Virginia Abernethy the chair of PAN's national advisory board. During the Campaign, it became known that Abernethy is an avowed "white separatist."[1] FAIR responded by issuing a press release calling for both McKee and Abernethy to resign from PAN, calling Abernethy's views "repulsive separatist views." Abernethy drew heated criticism for her close relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a direct descendant of the White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s, from which she had resigned.
Campaign
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. A counter-organization, the Statue of Liberty Coalition, was formed to block Proposition 200, claiming the initiative is racist and will target Latino civil rights. Supporters also relied for justification on a FAIR study that determined that Arizona taxpayers pay $1.3 billion to cover health, education, and incarceration costs of illegal immigrants. This FAIR study is contradicted directly by the Wells-Fargo Thunderbird School of International Management, an international business graduate school in Phoenix, AZ, which in 2003 published a study called "The Economic Impact of Arizona-Mexico Relationship". The study concludes that immigrants contribute $599 million to Arizona in income and sales taxes every year, while costing the State $250 million in services and $30 million in uncompensated health care. This generates a fiscal surplus for the state of $318 million per year.[2] It is unclear whether the Wells-Fargo study refers to all immigrants, or illegal immigrants.
Exit polls found that 47% of Latino voters voted in favor of the initiative.[3]
Implementation
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 will not apply. Proposition 200's sponsor, Protect Arizona NOW, continues to hold to the wording of Prop 200 that applies the welfare portion of the initiative to the nearly 60 programs contained in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 46-Welfare.
Controversy
Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, legal challenges to Proposition 200 are 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." [citation needed]
As of December 23, 2004, the federal appeals court in Tucson, Arizona had removed an earlier restraining order that had kept the state from enacting the law. The new law is, for the time being, exigent, with the definition of "public benefits" promulgated by the Governor and Attorney General. City, state, and county workers will 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.
Identification at the polls
Proposition 200 also provided for the requirement of voter identification at the place of voting. No major elections took place after its adoption but before November 7, 2006, and the actual implementation for this feature of the proposition remained unclear. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of such a requirement 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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily suspended the requirement of poll identification, a little over a month from the election[6]. However, the ruling was stayed fifteen days later by the U.S. Supreme Court [7].