Arizona: Election Maps Said to Dilute Republican Votes | Bloomberg

A Republican Party consultant testified at a trial over Arizona’s election redistricting that the state’s redrawn maps were the result of a “deliberate policy of underpopulating some districts” to benefit Democrats. Republican voters, in the federal court trial in Phoenix, accuse the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission of “a pattern of discriminatory intent” by concentrating Republicans in districts that exceed the average population while leaving Democrats with pluralities in a disproportionately large number of underpopulated districts. “What you saw manifested is that all of the potential voters in districts overpopulated have had their votes diluted and potential voters in underpopulated districts have had their votes enhanced,” Thomas Hofeller, testifying for opponents of the plan, said yesterday. Hofeller, a redistricting consultant for the Republican National Committee, said that the five most underpopulated districts were what he called Hispanic districts. That would be consistent with an attempt to under-populate Hispanic districts, and it wouldn’t be a logical outcome if it hadn’t been a goal to under-populate them, he said.

Arizona: Redistricting challenge heads to US court today | Arizona Daily Star

Republican interests head to federal court today hoping to realign the state's legislative districts more to their liking. Challengers are pinning their hopes on the fact that 30 districts crafted by the Independent Redistricting Commission are not all equal in population. Attorney David Cantelme contends the differences were done "deliberately, intentionally and in violation of the one-person/one-vote principle." The goal of the commission, he charges, was to cluster as many Republicans as possible together in districts, leaving the other, underpopulated districts with more Democrats than otherwise would occur, giving Democrats an unfair and illegal advantage in electing their own candidates to the Legislature. Attorneys for the commission do not dispute the population disparities.

Arizona: No special spot on voter registration form for Libertarians | Daily Sun

State lawmakers are free to provide special spots on voter registration forms to Democrats and Republicans that are not offered to other political parties, a federal judge has ruled. Judge Cindy Jorgenson acknowledged that the 2011 law does mean that those who want to register as Libertarians -- or, for that matter, any minor party -- have an additional hurdle. That's because the registration forms have three spaces: Republican, Democrat and "other." And that last option requires an individual to write out the name of the desired party. But Jorgenson rejected claims by an attorney for the Libertarian Party that the law amounts to illegal and unacceptable discrimination. She said the state has a legitimate interest in keeping the registration form simple.

Arizona: Latino youths protest Arizona election reform | NECN.com

A proposed overhaul of Arizona's early voting laws has been blasted by Latino youth who say the Republican-backed effort would suppress minority turnout just as more Hispanics are registering to vote. Students on spring break are expected to lobby lawmakers at the Arizona Legislature Thursday in opposition to two measures that would limit who gets to vote early and how mail ballots are returned to local election officials. Hispanics leaders, including Arizona Democratic lawmakers, said the election bills are aimed at silencing voters who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans currently control Arizona's state government. "We are not going away," said Daria Ovide, a Phoenix-based voting activist. "We are going to be voting no matter what and we are going to remember who was helpful and who was not helpful."

Arizona: Voter Registration Law Takes Heat At Supreme Court | Fox News

Monday marked yet another Supreme Court showdown for Arizona and the Obama administration. At issue, this time, was the state's Proposition 200 measure, which requires voter registration applicants to provide documentation proving U.S. citizenship. Critics of the measure say the state has no authority to go beyond what's required on the simplified federal voter registration form. On the federal form applicants must check a box indicating U.S. citizenship, sign attesting to that fact and drop the form in the mail. Arizona officials, citing hundreds of cases of non-U.S. citizens registering to vote, say additional barriers need to be put in place.  Under Proposition 200, applicants can present a number of various documents, including driver’s license, birth certificate and certain Native American tribal documents. "If somebody's willing to fraudulently vote, that person would be willing to sign falsely," said Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who argued the case Monday. "We need evidence that the person is a citizen," he added.

Arizona: Glitch costs couple their right to vote | Mohave Daily News

Two Bullhead City residents were denied their right to vote in Tuesday’s primary election, apparently over the county’s mapping of the street where their residence is. Shaukat and Marie Ali were told they don’t live in the city. Someone at the polling place contacted the Mohave County Voter Registration office in Kingman. “When they called up, they gave them my registration ID number, and based on the ID number, they said we didn’t live in the city,” Shaukat Ali said. “I can’t be more sorry that he was disenfranchised,” said Mohave County Voter Registration Supervisor Kim Stewart. Ali’s street, Lakeview Drive, was built in 2005 and has seven registered voters living on it, according to Stewart. The street was incorrectly shown to be in the Davis Dam Precinct, outside of the Bullhead City limits. Lakeview Drive certainly is within the city limits; it’s a U-shaped cul de sac off Desert Trails Drive east of the Bullhead Parkway. It is nowhere close to the Davis Dam Precinct, which is north of the city limits in the area of Davis Dam and Lake Mohave. “No one’s ever mentioned it to us (by asking why their ballot didn’t include city elections) so we didn’t know it was broken,” Stewart said.

Arizona: Justices will probe Arizona’s voter registration law | ABA Journal

It’s almost spring, and that means the usual seasonal rites in the District of Columbia: the cherry blossom trees, the deluge of students—and another case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a controversial law passed by the state of Arizona. The Grand Canyon State has been before the justices to defend its laws or programs five times over the last three years. In 2010, the high court: upheld an Arizona immigration law that penalized businesses if they employ illegal immigrants; struck down a state law providing for matching funds for candidates for state office that was meant to put them on an equal footing with wealthy, privately financed candidates; and held that a group of taxpayers lacked standing to challenge a state program of tax credits for donations for private school tuition. Last term, the justices ruled that several provisions of the state’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070, were pre-empted by federal law. The court also declined to enjoin a provision requiring the police to verify the immigration status of people they stop or arrest. This year’s offering is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, a case about voter registration procedures that comes with an undercurrent of concern over illegal immigration. Arguments are scheduled for March 18.

Arizona: Court to rule on Arizona voting law | SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on the constitutionality of a state requirement that voters must prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and cast their ballots.   The Court granted review of an Arizona case in which it previously had refused the state’s request to block a lower court decision that struck down that requirement.  Arizona’s voters adopted that law when they passed “Proposition 200″ in 2004.  The Court will not rule on the case until after this year’s election, so the requirement will not be in effect next month.  (The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., docket 11-71.) That was the only new case granted Monday.   In one significant denial, the Court refused to consider imposing a heavier duty on managers of employee retirement plans to justify investing plan assets in the company’s own stock.  The Court turned aside without comment two petitions on that issue.  (Gray v. Citigroup, 11-1531, and Gearren v. McGraw-Hill Companies, 11-1550.)

Arizona: Can Arizona Make You Show Your Birth Certificate to Vote? The state’s voter ID requirement goes to the Supreme Court on Monday | Slate Magazine

You’ve probably heard that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of striking down an integral part of the Voting Rights Act. That case, however, is not the only chance that the highest court will have this term to affect voting rights around the country. On Monday, the justices will hear oral arguments in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., a case that concerns Arizona’s power to impose its own conditions on top of the federal rules for voter registration. The case began as a challenge to Proposition 200, an initiative passed by Arizona voters in 2004 that requires voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens by showing a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license, naturalization certificate, or tribal document before registering and also to show identification when casting their ballots. Under the law, state election officials must reject any voter registration forms not accompanied by sufficient evidence of citizenship—even the federal form produced by Congress under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which doesn’t generally require the documents Arizona does.

Arizona: Proof of citizenship voter registration requirement heads to Supreme Court | Arizona Capitol Times

To Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, the state law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration is “common sense,” not a burden. To opponents, Arizona’s Proposition 200 is just another obstacle that would restrict access to the polls for the young, elderly and minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in this month in a hearing that will be watched closely by voting rights advocates and by several other states with similar laws. At issue in the March 18 hearing is a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said federal law trumped state law on voter registration requirements. The appeals court said in April that voters could use a federal mail-in registration form, established by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which only requires that they attest to their citizenship through a signature.

Arizona: Proposal to change voter-registration rules fueling debate

To Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, the state law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration is “common sense,” not a burden. To opponents, Arizona’s Proposition 200 is just another obstacle that would restrict access to the polls for the young, elderly and minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in this month in a hearing that will be watched closely by voting-rights advocates and by several other states with similar laws. At issue in the March 18 hearing is a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said federal law trumps state law on voter-registration requirements. The appeals court said in April that voters could use a federal mail-in registration form, established by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which requires that they attest to their citizenship only through a signature.

Arizona: The Voting Rights Case You Haven’t Heard Of | Constitutional Accountability Center

More than a week after oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, the scorn expressed by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and others towards the Voting Rights Act continues to dominate the news.  Whether it be Justice Scalia’s statement that the Voting Rights Act survives only because of the self-perpetuating power of “racial entitlements” or Chief Justice Roberts’ dubious claim that the state of voting discrimination may be worse in Massachusetts than Mississippi, there has been an outpouring of coverage highlighting just how the weak the arguments against the Voting Rights Act are.  As Linda Greenhouse put it, it would be “an error of historic proportions” – akin to Plessy and other travesties in Supreme Court history – to strike down the Voting Rights Act when the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to eradicate racial discrimination in voting.  With the focus on whether the Court will strike down our nation’s most iconic civil rights law, there has been virtually no attention to the fact that, when the Justices convene again on March 18th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a second major voting rights case, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council.  But Inter Tribal Council is a very important case that will have huge implications for Congress’ power to protect the right to vote and to enact new, needed reforms in federal elections.

Arizona: Improved election data would mean a better informed electorate | Arizona Capitol Times

For the past two months, the Arizona Capitol Times and the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting have sifted through the more than 2.3 million votes cast in the 2012 election, with the goal of offering readers a deeper understanding of how Arizona voted. From close races, like the fight over Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District, to strange voting patterns in Colorado City, our “Mapping the Vote” project showed why some races turned out as they did, what factors led to victories or defeats and how some of the details in the election results can say a lot more about groups of voters than simply who they elected. But something else became clear during the project. While this type of analysis takes a lot of time and resources, it shouldn’t be made more difficult because of inconsistencies in the way the data is organized and structured — or because of how state and county election officials make data available.

Arizona: Bill Targets Early Ballots Key to Latino Turnout | Bloomberg

Arizona lawmakers may make it a felony for community groups or political committees to gather and submit mail ballots before elections, a strategy used by Latino activists and others to boost voter participation. The measure moving through the Republican-controlled Legislature is among several bills that backers say will help prevent fraud and reduce the burden on election officials. Opponents say they are intended to curb Latino voting, which tends to be Democratic, as Hispanics become a larger percentage of the population while white baby-boomers age. “These bills are targeted at groups that are turning out the Latino vote,” said Roopali Desai, a Phoenix lawyer representing Promise Arizona, which said it helped register more than 34,000 new voters and turned in thousands of ballots last year. “They are trying to take away the tools in these groups’ toolkits, like mobilizing and getting people to return their ballots -- tools that we have learned are successful.”

Arizona: Minority senators raise alarm on elections-linked bills | AZCentral

A trio of racially diverse state senators on Monday condemned elections-related bills that they say discriminate against minorities and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to monitor the legislation. Of particular concern to the senators are Senate Bill 1003, which would limit who can return a voter’s ballot, and SB 1261, which would drop people from the early voting list if they failed to mail in their ballots and instead voted at the polls. Both passed the Senate last week. “It would truly throw up obstacles to the early-vote process,” Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor said of SB 1261. She is African-American. She was joined by Sens. Jack Jackson Jr., a Navajo, and Steve Gallardo, who is Latino. All three are Democrats, and all three said the bills would have a “devastating” impact on minority voting.

Arizona: Clean Elections consolidation bill advances | Arizona Daily Star

The Citizen's Clean Election Commission would be consolidated with the Arizona Secretary of State's office and take on added responsibilities for overseeing election law violations and lobbyist reporting under a bill approved by a Senate committee Tuesday. The proposal approved by the Appropriations Committee would allow the voter-created commission to still do its work independently but add some responsibilities and bring operational efficiencies, Secretary of State Ken Bennett said. The bill also would restore a so-called "tax checkoff" included in the law creating the commission that was eliminated by the Legislature last year. The bill would require any extra money the commission has to be turned over to Bennett's office to help pay for replacing election equipment. The state needs millions of dollars to buy new voting equipment in the coming years.

Arizona: Cost of Provisional Ballots, Maricopa County, AZ | The Pew Charitable Trusts

This past November, Maricopa County, Arizona, issued the most provisional ballots in its history. In an in-depth report, the county elections department provides detailed information including not just why these ballots were issued and rejected, but also estimates of how much they cost. More than 120,000 provisional ballots were issued in the county during this past presidential election, of which nearly 100,000 were counted. The report identifies 18 different reasons for issuing provisional ballots, with half used because the voter requested an early ballot but did not return it and then showed up at the polls to vote in person.

Arizona: Republicans seek overhaul of early voting process | Mohave Daily News

Efforts by Arizona Republican lawmakers to overhaul the early voting process and fight election fraud have drawn criticism from Democrats and civic groups who fear the proposed changes would limit turnout among the state’s growing Hispanic electorate. At least seven bills in the Senate and House this year seek to adjust the early voting process. One measure would remove voters from the permanent early-voting list if they don’t vote by mail and fail to respond to a notice. Another measure would prohibit groups from collecting early ballots from voters for delivery to county election officials. Another measure seeks notarized signatures for early voters. Republican legislators argue that they must rework Arizona’s early voting process to combat unlawful votes and reduce confusion at the polls.

Arizona: More vote centers, more staff next time | YumaSun

Yuma County will open more voting centers in future elections as one way to avoid a repeat of the congestion and frustration seen here last November. Instead of 11 voting centers, there will be 15, and all voting centers may have more staffing. In addition, the county hopes to do on-site printer tests, set up in bigger facilities, keep more people on hand to troubleshoot technical difficulties and whittle the wait times from as high as four hours to no more than one. “We all know we had some pretty significant challenges we dealt with,” Yuma County Administrator Robert Pickels said Wednesday as he presented the board of supervisors with an after-action review of Election Day 2012, detailing problems and solutions.

Arizona: Lawmaker seeks pilot program to test online voting in Arizona | Cronkite News

The future of voting is online, and moving Arizona’s elections to the Internet would save money, deter voter fraud and increase efficiency, a state lawmaker says. “We will vote online some day,” said Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa. “So why not start to figure it out and get ahead of the curve and have Arizona lead the way on this?” Worsley introduced SB 1387 to create an online voting pilot program before the 2014 primary election. It would require at least one county and one city, town or other local jurisdiction to be involved and allow for votes to be cast via the Internet. … Bruce Schneier, the author of five books on cryptography, computer and network security and overall security, said he likes the idea of online voting but doesn’t think it can be done securely. “We have not, in the history of mankind, created a computer system without a security vulnerability,” he said. Worsley, founder of retail catalog giant SkyMall, insists the system he proposes can be reliable. “My business did over a million transactions a year,” he said. “I know that this can be done securely.” Worsley compared Internet voting to the millions of online banking or stock transactions that happen every day, but Schneier said there’s a fundamental difference. “The important difference is that voting, by definition, is anonymous,” he said. “If there’s electronic banking fraud, we look at what happens, we can roll it back and make everybody whole. We can’t do that with a voting system.”

Arizona: Bill would bar State secretary from serving on candidate committee | AZ Central

In the last two presidential elections, Arizona’s chief elections officer doubled as the head of one of the presidential nominees’ state campaign committees, raising eyebrows that the dual role could be a conflict of interest. A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would bar that from happening again. Under the terms of Senate Bill 1335, the Arizona secretary of state could not serve as an officer of any candidate’s campaign committee if that candidate is running in an election the secretary of state would oversee. Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, the bill’s sponsor, said it’s a way to ensure that election oversight is not biased. It would bring the elections office in line with the same prohibitions that apply to the judiciary: judges can’t serve on a candidate’s committee, he said.

Arizona: Panel OKs altering recall election rules, election, recall, pearce | YumaSun

Hoping to avoid another ouster of one of their own, Republican legislators on Thursday voted to change the rules for recall elections. The measure approved by the House Judiciary Committee would require there be both a primary as well as a general election once a public official is recalled. Now, there is a single winner-take-all election. That distinction is important. That would mean only Republicans get to vote in the first step of the process in a recall of a GOP lawmaker. Whoever survives that partisan primary would face off against the Democrat and any others in the general election — assuming there is anyone else running in what might be a largely one-party district. Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, sponsor of HB 2282, made no secret of his interest: He was a supporter of Senate President Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who was ousted in a 2011 recall.

Arizona: Committee narrowly endorses bill on purging early voter lists | Cronkite News

Over objections from voting rights groups, a Senate committee endorsed a bill Tuesday aimed at helping counties manage permanent early voter lists to reduce the number of provisional ballots cast. SB 1261, authored by Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, would allow counties to purge from the lists people who don’t vote in both the primary and general elections in a given year. Election officials would have to notify those voters by mail that their names will be removed if they don’t return a postcard saying that they wish to remain on the list. Reagan said that after last year’s elections officials in all 15 counties asked the Legislature to help them decrease the number of provisional ballots cast.

Arizona: Redistricting Commission immune from grilling for decisions | The Verde Independent

Members of the Independent Redistricting Commission do not need to answer certain questions from those who are suing them, a federal court has ruled. The judges accepted the argument by commission attorneys that its members are entitled to the same immunity from having to explain their decisions as state legislators. That allows them to rebuff inquiries from those who are suing them. But the judges hearing the case set for trial next month cautioned the commissioners they may want to think twice before asserting that privilege. They ruled any claim of privilege is an all-or-nothing prospect. The ruling -- and the warning -- could ultimately affect the outcome of the case.

Arizona: Legislature ponies up $500K for redistricting map panel | Arizona Daily Star

State lawmakers grudgingly approved $500,000 Thursday to keep the Independent Redistricting Commission in business - and help it fight the Legislature. The funding, given final approval by both the House and Senate, falls short of the $2.2 million the commission sought in supplemental funding for the balance of this budget year, which runs through June 30. But Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the amount will provide enough to pay the commission's lawyers to be ready for a trial set to begin in March in federal court challenging the maps the panel drew for legislative districts. He said the rest of the funds the commission wanted are unnecessary - at least for the time being.

Arizona: Lawmaker: Require notarized signatures for early voters | Cronkite News

Requiring Arizonans to have their signatures notarized to get on the permanent early ballot list or to receive early ballots would help prevent voter fraud, a state lawmaker contends. “When you go into the polls, you show your ID,” said Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix. “Every time you go into the polls, you show your ID. Well, if you’re going to vote by mail you’re not walking into the poll, so shouldn’t you have the same safeguards in place?” Seel said that the increase in people voting by mail prompted him to introduce HB 2350. “My bill is really almost a clean-up; that is, it stays consistent with that belief that anyone who votes truly should be authorized to vote,” he said.

Arizona: Lawmakers: Election day voter registration would boost participation | Cronkite News

Democratic lawmakers say allowing voters to register and cast ballots on the same day would increase election participation, but some county officials worry that it would further complicate the voting process. State Rep. Martin J. Quezada, D-Avondale, and state Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, have introduced legislation that would allow people to register and cast provisional ballots on election day. The bills also would rescind a state law cutting off voter registration 29 days before an election. “People express a lot of interest within those last two to three weeks before an election,” Quezada said. “They’re seeing more commercials, they’re seeing more TV, they’re seeing more mail.” He said that many people become interested too late and end up not being able to vote.

Arizona: Lawmakers crafting responses to election concerns | Cronkite News

The large number of provisional ballots cast in November has two lawmakers so far proposing ways to address the issue. Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, the House minority leader, said he is drafting legislation to form a committee to study election problems and recommend legislation. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, chairwoman of a new Senate Elections Committee, said she is aiming to cut down on problems with permanent early voting lists that led to many provisional ballots being cast. Provisional ballots are given to voters at a polling places when there are questions about their identity or eligibility to vote. About 172,000 were cast in the general election, up from the 107,000 in 2008.

Arizona: Counties eye early-voting list overhaul | azcentral

Arizona’s largest counties plan to ask lawmakers for authority to purge some inactive voters from the permanent early-voting list in an effort to decrease the number of provisional ballots cast in future elections. Nearly half of Arizona voters who cast provisional ballots at the polls in the 2012 general election were asked to do so because they previously had signed up for permanent early voting, meaning ballots already had been sent to them in the mail, according to The Arizona Republic’s analysis of statewide election data. In Maricopa County, the state’s largest, more than 59,000 voters who signed up for early voting nonetheless showed up at the polls to cast ballots on Election Day, according to county elections data. Some county elections officials hope to see statutory changes that would allow them to evaluate whether certain voters on the permanent early-voting list should remain there.

Arizona: March Supreme Court hearing for voter-registration case | Arizona Republic

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 18 will hear arguments surrounding Arizona's 2004 voter-approved requirement that residents show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. In the case surrounding Proposition 200, state attorneys will ask the high court to overturn a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the state cannot require Arizona voters to provide documents when registering with the federal form, but it can require voters registering with the state form to do so. Among its provisions, the National Voter Registration Act creates a standard federal registration form that all states must accept. It requires applicants to sign a statement that they are citizens, but it does not require them to show any proof.