Related articles:

Ruling expected soon on voter ID

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

PHOENIX — A federal judge refused Monday to order counties to accept new voter registrations without the proof of citizenship mandated by Proposition 200.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments by various groups that federal law requires counties to honor a national mail-in voter registration form that does not require applicants to prove they are citizens.

Silver said the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are simply a starting point. She said states are free to enact measures — including requiring proof of citizenship — to make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally qualified to do so.

Monday's ruling does not end the lawsuit filed by organizations ranging from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters to the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It simply denies them the restraining order they sought for immediate relief.

But Nina Perales, who represents MALDEF, conceded that Silver's view of what the federal law does and does not prohibit will make it difficult for foes of Proposition 200 to win their case. Perales said no decision has been made on whether to seek immediate review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Proposition 200, adopted by voters in 2004, requires proof of citizenship to register and requires identification to cast a ballot. Rules adopted by the state list specific documents that can be used to show that someone is legally entitled to register to vote, such as a driver's license, passport or birth certificate.

But Perales said the national voter registration form, created under a congressional order, has no such requirement. She told Silver people who use this form must be allowed to register and vote without proof of citizenship.

The groups that sued had the backing of Paul DeGregorio, director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which put together the federal form. He sent a letter to Secretary of State Jan Brewer in March saying federal law requires counties to accept that form without additional identification.

Silver, however, said both the plaintiffs and DeGregorio are wrong.

She pointed out that federal law says states may obtain other information necessary to "assess eligibility of the applicant" to vote.

"Determining whether an individual is a United States citizen is of paramount importance when determining his or her eligibility to vote," Silver wrote. She noted that federal law "repeatedly mentions that its purpose and goal is to increase registration of 'eligible citizens.' "

The lawsuits also contend Proposition 200 is illegally discriminatory because minorities are less likely than others to have the kind of identification necessary. Silver has yet to hear any testimony on those claims.