Wed, May 14, 2008
ez access
Subscriber services | Subscriptions
Custom clipper icon

Most Recent Tucson Traffic Incidents

E ADELAIDE DR/N MOUNTAIN AV ,TUC TRAFFIC HAZARD 10:04
E BILBY RD/S FONTANA AV ,TUC TRAFFIC HAZARD 09:56
N SABINO CANYON RD/E TANQUE VERDE RD ,T ACCIDENT NO INJURY 07:59
updated every 5 minutes - incidents provided by transview.org

Hourly Update

Judge upholds proof of citizenship requirement for vote

By Howard Fischer
Capitol media services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.29.2007
PHOENIX -- There's nothing illegal about requiring would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver rejected various contentions of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund that the requirements of a 2004 voter-approved measure are discriminatory or unconstitutional. These both require proof of citizenship to register and presentation of certain forms of identification to cast a ballot.
"Only citizens may vote," Silver wrote. "Requiring an individual to present proof of citizenship allows the state to determine if that individual is qualified to vote."
The decision, made available Wednesday, does not end the lawsuit. MALDEF has several other claims which, at least at this point, would have to be decided at a trial.
But Silver, in the new ruling, found nine of MALDEF's contentions so lacking in merit that she agreed with attorneys for the state that they should be thrown out even before a trial.
Nina Perales, MALDEF's regional counsel, said her organization took up the case because Hispanics are less likely to have the kinds of documents the state has determined are necessary to comply with Proposition 200. That, she said, means they are denied the right to vote.
But Perales said the issue crosses ethnic lines, saying anyone who is poor and does not have a driver's license -- one of the acceptable documents -- would be denied the right to vote.
That formed the basis of one of the claims: that the identification requirement amounted to an unconstitutional "poll tax," as people would need to purchase certain documents to vote.
Silver rejected that argument, saying that the requirement to prove citizenship with one or more acceptable documents does not rise to the level of a fee to vote.
The judge also rejected the argument that the requirement to show ID at the polls illegally creates two classes of people because there is no similar mandate for those who decide to vote early by mail. But Silver said there is nothing inherently illegal about Arizona setting up different practices and procedures for different types of voting.
Save Money! Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Star.
Go Back