Arizona: DoJ and Arizona clash – again – this time over voter registration | East Valley Tribune

Arizona, already at odds with the federal government and civil-rights groups over immigration, is adding voter ID and the Voting Rights Act to the disputes. Arizona’s voter ID law, a portion of Proposition 200, was partially struck down in April by a federal appeals court that said the state can’t require proof of citizenship for people who use a federal form to register to vote. But the court said Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for those who register using a state form and the state can still require voters to show ID at the polls. Federal voter registration forms, which must be accepted in all 50 states, were created as part of a 1993 federal law meant to make voter registration easier. The federal motor voter law – so named because it allows registration upon renewing or applying for a driver’s license – does not require applicants to prove citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states can require proof of citizenship for their own registration forms, but not for federal forms. Arizona is appealing the court ruling against its restrictive voter ID law, and the state plans to sue over the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires federal permission for any changes to state and local elections. Arizona has asked the Supreme Court to allow the state to require citizenship proof on federal registration forms.

Arizona: Judge blocks top-two initiative from Arizona ballot | Arizona Capitol Times

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued an injunction against the Open Elections/Open Government Act today, ruling that a provision on the election of political parties’ officers violates a rule requiring ballot initiatives to focus on a single subject. Judge Mark Brain ruled that the section on the rights of political parties should have been a separate amendment from the initiative, which aims to create a “top two” primary election system in Arizona. The provision on the rights of political parties states that the initiative does restrict the rights of individuals to associate with political parties, and that parties may still elect party officers, support candidates or otherwise participate in elections, but that “no such procedures shall be paid for or subsidized using public funds.” The provision would have eliminated taxpayer-funded elections for precinct committeemen. Paul Johnson, chairman of the Open Government Committee, said the group will appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court. He said the appeal will likely be filed on Tuesday.

Arizona: Judge not buying arguments by foes of open primary ballot measure | East Valley Tribune

A state judge on Friday questioned efforts of foes of an open primary system to keep it from ever going to voters. The opponents contend that the proposed constitutional amendment illegally deals with too many disparate subjects. Attorney Mike Liburdi said that makes putting it on the November ballot improper. But during a hearing Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain suggested he was not buying all of Liburdi’s arguments that the measure, if approved, would change too many unrelated things. Brain also was skeptical of Liburdi’s contention that a 100-word description of the measure, included on each petition, did not comply with legal requirements that it be solely a factual description of what would change if approved. The attorney argued that proponents improperly used the description to convince people to sign. But Brain told Liburdi that under his interpretation of the law, there is no way anyone could accurately describe a ballot measure within 100 words. Liburdi started to craft an answer when Brain interjected. “They would say that it sucked,” the judge joshed.

Arizona: Suit targets Arizona election measure | The Arizona Republic

A proposed constitutional amendment to create a new primary-election system violates the state’s single-subject rule and should not go before voters in November, a new lawsuit charges. The challenge to the Open Elections/Open Government effort comes from two Republicans, a Libertarian and the League of Women Voters of Arizona. In a filing in Maricopa County Superior Court, they allege the “top two” primary proposes multiple changes to the state’s election process, running afoul of the requirement that ballot measures propose only one substantive change. The filing marks the second time this month a high-stakes ballot issue faces a legal battle. Backers of a permanent 1-cent-per-dollar increase in the state sales tax to pay for education and construction projects are fighting to reinstate their measure on the Nov. 6 ballot. They head to court today. Secretary of State Ken Bennett disqualified the measure earlier this month, saying supporters did not follow proper procedures for filing and circulating their proposal.

Arizona: Governor Brewer nixes plan for election law special session | TriValley Central

Gov. Jan Brewer late Friday dropped a plan to hold a special session to present Arizona voters with a second ballot measure on proposed changes to election laws, according to a Brewer spokesman who said legislative leaders had changed their minds. Republican legislative leaders and Brewer earlier had agreed to hold a special session to consider a possible referendum that was a reaction to a recently filed initiative measure. The initiative measure would make major changes in how Arizona conducts primary elections. It will go on the November ballot if election officials determine that backers submitted enough petition signatures. Word of the planned special session surfaced earlier Friday, a day after initiative backers filed their petitions.

Arizona: GOP alternative to open primary initiative falls apart; Brewer lacks votes for special session | East Valley Tribune

Plans by Republicans to craft their own alternative to an open primary initiative blew apart late Friday as some party members balked. Matthew Benson, press aide to Gov. Jan Brewer, said his boss believes there is a key weakness in the proposal submitted Thursday to go on the November ballot: It would allow candidates to run for office without disclosing their party affiliation. Benson said letting people hide their true party affiliation would allow candidates to “game” the system. He said that could give a leg up to Democrats in heavily Republican areas like Mesa — and vice versa in Tucson — as many voters cast their ballots based largely on a candidate’s party. So Brewer was prepared to call a special session for this week to offer an alternative to the initiative, one that kept the essence of the “open primary” but with the disclosure requirement. But Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said that was not the deal sought by many fellow GOP lawmakers. So they refused to go along, leaving the Brewer-preferred modification without the votes.

Arizona: ‘Jungle Primaries’ likely headed to fall election | azfamily.com

It looks like Arizona voters will get a shot at radically changing the way politics is played around here. A group that wants to abolish traditional partisan primary elections says they’ve got the support to put the question on the ballot this fall. Leaders of the Open Elections Open Government filed what they claim is a record number of petition signatures on Thursday afternoon with Arizona Secretary of State’s office. The organization needed a minimum of 259,213 signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. But a spokesman for the group says they’ve collected more than 356,000, a number they believe sets a new benchmark in Arizona.

Arizona: Secretary of State facing lawsuit after deciding to reject nearly 300,000 citizens’ initiative signatures | TriValley Central

The Quality Education and Jobs Committee last week filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court challenging Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s rejection of 290,849 signatures to qualify the citizens’ initiative for the Nov. 6 ballot. In its legal complaint against Bennett, the committee asked the court to overturn his decision, arguing that Bennett’s decision violates state law, legislative intent and the Arizona Constitution. The complaint, filed by former Arizona Chief Justice Stanley Feldman as the lead attorney, stated that Secretary Bennett, by rejecting the signatures, has “failed to perform a duty required by law as to which he has no discretion.” The committee asked for the case to be heard quickly because of election deadlines. “The motto of the Secretary of State’s Office is that Arizona voters’ voice and vote count,” said Ann-Eve Pedersen, chair of the Quality Education and Jobs citizens’ initiative. “For Secretary Bennett to now tell voters that their signatures don’t count and they won’t even have the chance to vote on a measure they overwhelmingly support erodes public confidence in government and in the democratic process.”

Arizona: Supreme Court declines to let Arizona require citizenship proof from voters | Tucson Sentinel

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for a lower court ruling that would stop Arizona election officials from rejecting voter registration forms that do not have evidence of citizenship. Arizona has been requiring proof of citizenship with voter registration forms since 2005, shortly after voters passed Proposition 200. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April ruled that the proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with federal voter registration law. The Supreme Court had stayed that decision earlier this month at the request of Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, who was planning a challenge to the lower court decision. The justices Thursday, without comment, lifted that stay, clearing the way for the circuit court to issue an order banning the practice of requiring citizenship proof. That order is likely to come in the next week, said attorneys involved in the case.

Arizona: Supreme Court refuses to block ban on Arizona requirement for proof of citizenship for voter registration | Cronkite News

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for a lower court ruling that would stop Arizona election officials from rejecting voter registration forms that do not have evidence of citizenship. Arizona has been requiring proof of citizenship with voter registration forms since 2005, shortly after voters passed Proposition 200. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April ruled that the proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with federal voter registration law. The Supreme Court had stayed that decision earlier this month at the request of Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne, who was planning a challenge to the lower court decision. The justices Thursday, without comment, lifted that stay, clearing the way for the circuit court to issue an order banning the practice of requiring citizenship proof. That order is likely to come in the next week, said attorneys involved in the case.

Arizona: Supreme Court’s Split decision Keeps Issue Alive for November | Roll Call

The Supreme Court’s split decision on Arizona’s immigration law gave President Barack Obama an important legal victory Monday while upholding just enough of the statute to keep the issue alive as he pursues Latino voters in advance of the November election. Indeed, the president’s advantage on the issue was clear given that top Republicans either declined to respond or, in the case of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, issued statements that vaguely supported states rights without commenting on the specifics of the tough Arizona law. The controversial “papers please” section of the law requiring police officers to try to ascertain the immigration status of people they suspect to be illegal immigrants was upheld, while the rest of the law adding state criminal penalties for immigration violations was gutted in a 5-3 ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. With the states constrained, the onus is squarely on Congress to fix the nation’s immigration system, but nothing beyond partisan posturing is likely on that front before November.

Arizona: Citizenship mandate challenged | SCOTUSblog

Challengers to Arizona’s eight-year-old mandate that voters must prove that they are U.S. citizens before they may register to go to the polls argued Monday that the state has not offered any evidence that the requirement is necessary to prevent fraud in elections.   Urging the Supreme Court to leave undisturbed a Ninth Circuit Court decision striking down the citizenship rule, the opponents of Arizona’s “Proposition 200″ contended that a delay of that ruling will interfere with voting in this year’s elections and drive potential voters away from the polls.  Two responses to Arizona’s plea for postponement can be read here and here. The state’s voters approved the citizenship mandate in 2004, and its enactment has led to a continuing courthouse battle that has been to the Supreme Court once before, and even led to an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling against the requirement by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting temporarily as a federal appeals court judge.  Indeed, her name was invoked by the challengers as they sought to head off Arizona’s stay application (11A1189).

Arizona: Phoenix OKs redistricting map but still may consider an alternative | azcentral.com

The Phoenix City Council voted on a final redistricting plan Tuesday afternoon, but the fight over where to redraw new lines for council districts may not be over. District 6 City Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he wants elected officials to reconsider an alternative council district map he introduced at the meeting that slightly modifies the map the council adopted 8-1. He said he’ll ask for a reconsideration of the city’s redistricting plan, and the City Council ordered staff to run an analysis on DiCiccio’s alternative map. DiCiccio’s map proposes his district retain or lose certain voting precincts on the edges of his district, which covers the Biltmore, Arcadia and Ahwatukee Foothills areas.

Arizona: Voter ID law opponents ask Supreme Court to let lower court’s rejection stand | Arizona Capitol Times

Opponents of Arizona’s voter identification law asked the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to let a lower court decision take effect that would end the state’s requirement of proof of citizenship for voter registration. Justice Anthony Kennedy last week ordered a temporary stay of that ruling in response to state officials who said the decision, coming “on the eve of a new election cycle,” would have thwarted Arizona’s ability to “ensure fair federal elections.” Kennedy gave opponents of the law until Monday to file a response to the stay. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has until Wednesday to reply. Arizona has been requiring proof of citizenship since 2005, after the passage of Proposition 200. That law requires county recorders to reject any voter registrationform without proof of citizenship and it requires people to present identification when they show up to vote.

Arizona: Voter-ID Law Gets Temporary Pass From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy | Phoenix News

In April, the U.S. Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a portion of Arizona’s voter-approved voter-ID law, intended to keep non-citizens from voting. Because of that ruling, Arizona was supposed to stop enforcing the law. But a new order by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy permits the law to go into effect — for the time being. Kennedy’s order comes in response to Arizona Solictor General David Cole’s motion on Wednesday that sought a stay to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

Arizona: State allowed to keep law that demands proof of citizenship for voter registration | East Valley Tribune

Arizona can continue to demand proof of citizenship before registering voters, at least for the time being.
In a brief order Thursday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked a ruling against the state from taking effect as scheduled Friday. Instead, he directed those who successfully challenged the requirement to file legal papers by the end of the day Monday explaining why the April decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be upheld. It does not mean the high court intends to overturn the ruling — or even from preventing it from taking effect while the state seeks review. But it does mean that at least one justice thinks the issue is significant enough to require an immediate look by him and his colleagues.

Arizona: Delay in Arizona election case | SCOTUSblog

Justice Kennedy has issued a temporary order delaying the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, at least until further briefs are filed in the case.  The Circuit Court mandate was due to be issued tomorrow, but now will be delayed until at least next Wednesday afternoon.  The challengers to the Arizona citizenship proof requirement are to file a brief by Monday afternoon, with a state reply due by noon Wednesday.   Earlier today, this post was updated to provide a link to the application, here. Arizona state officials asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to allow election officials there to demand that all voters show proof of citizenship before they may register to vote   The divided en banc Ninth Circuit Court ruled in April that the citizenship proof requirement conflicts with a 1993 federal law passed to make it easier for individuals to sign up to vote.  The state took its plea for a delay of that ruling, for the duration of this year’s election season, to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has the option of acting alone or referring the issue to his eight colleagues.  The application (11A1189) was filed in Arizona v. Gonzalez, et al.  The en banc Ninth Circuit, over three judges’ dissents, had denied a stay last week.

Arizona: Phoenix fights law dictating election years | azcentral.com

Phoenix is preparing to sue the state to block a new law that would force Arizona cities and towns to hold elections in the fall in the same years as state general elections. City Council members who want to challenge the law say it infringes on the city’s authority to control its own affairs and govern based on its city charter. Some are also worried about the unintended consequences of the law, such as forcing sitting council members to serve at least a year longer than their elected terms to comply with the legislation. If Phoenix follows through with the suit, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and other municipalities likely will add their support, league officials said. But not all council members agree with a legal challenge. Some question why the city should fight legislation aimed at increasing voter turnout and saving taxpayers money.

Arizona: Today’s special election held in the shadow of Obama, former Rep. Giffords | The Hill

President Obama and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) aren’t on the ballot in Tuesday’s special election, but the two have become central figures in the fight for control of the southern Arizona district. From the start of the race, Republicans attempted to make the contest about Obama and Democrat Ron Barber’s support for the president and his policies. But in recent weeks, as the national fight between the two parties has escalated, the race has taken on a larger significance for both.

Arizona: Redistricting headed to two courts | Arizona Daily Sun

The Independent Redistricting Commission wants a judge to throw out efforts by Republicans to void the map it created for the state’s nine congressional districts. Legal papers filed late Monday charge that those seeking a new map are using “innuendo, selectively extracted transcript experts, and speculation to weave a conspiracy theory intended to cast doubt on the commission’s work.” Attorneys for the commission also said the lawsuit never says that the maps, which will be used beginning this year, do not meet the constitutional goals. These range from requirements to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act to creating compact districts and protecting communities of interest. Instead, Mary O’Grady and Joe Kanefield, the two lead attorneys for the commission, told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain that the complaint is instead focused on “manufacturing flaws” about the procedures used to draw the map.

Arizona: Redistricting panel wants GOP suit tossed | Arizona Daily Star

The Independent Redistricting Commission wants a judge to throw out efforts by Republicans to void the map it created for the state’s nine congressional districts. Legal papers filed late Monday in Maricopa County Superior Court charge those seeking a new map are using “innuendo, selectively extracted transcript experts, and speculation to weave a conspiracy theory intended to cast doubt on the commission’s work.” Meanwhile, in a related lawsuit in U.S. District Court, a Democratic lawyer has questioned whether the judge hearing a challenge to the state’s 30 legislative district lines should be removed because 10 years ago he represented the Republicans in a similar fight over the redrawing of political boundaries. Republicans are challenging the new congressional and legislative district lines, saying the commission favored Democrats in drawing the lines, which will be used in elections for the next 10 years, and violated several mandates of the 2000 voter-approved initiative creating the commission, and in both cases the failure to follow procedures resulted in maps that do not meet the constitutional requirements.

Arizona: New state law could alter future election dates in city, county | Mohave Daily News

A bill signed by the Arizona governor that would consolidate elections could impact city and county elections in Mohave County. Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law House bill HB-2826 that would consolidate elections effective in 2014. The goal of the bill was to increase voter turnout and to reduce the cost of an election. Bullhead City will hold elections for four council members with the primary in March 2013 and the runoff election in May 2013. The new council members will serve 31⁄2-year terms with the next primary and general elections for those seats to be held in August and November 2016. After the 2013 election, Bullhead City as well as Kingman and Lake Havasu City will hold elections in the fall along with state and national elections, Bullhead City Clerk Sue Stein said.

Arizona: Election officials oppose redrawing districts | Arizona Daily Star

Election officials from around the state are lining up to oppose a bid by a Republican-backed group to get a court to force new lines to be drawn for this year’s legislative elections. Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne, who is leading the charge, filed legal papers late Wednesday to intervene in the federal court lawsuit. The county’s position is a panel of judges being convened to look at the work of the Independent Redistricting Commission should keep its hands off the lines, at least for the time being. Osborne said the issue has nothing to do with politics. She said it does not matter to her who runs for the Legislature and where their districts are. And Osborne said she takes no position on the charge by critics of the commission that the maps are biased against Republicans. The problem, she said, is timing.

Arizona: Cities, counties urge Governor to veto consolidated Arizona elections bill | Arizona Capitol Times

Dozens of local and county officials are asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would force cities to consolidate their election dates with the state. The officials appealed to Brewer’s background as a county supervisor and secretary of state, asking her to help cities maintain local control of their elections. They argued that HB2826 would stamp out local control, politicize non-partisan elections and increase election costs. HB2826 would force all cities in Arizona to hold their primary and general elections for candidates in even-numbered years beginning in 2014, at the same time as state and federal elections. Twenty-seven county election officials signed a letter to Brewer, urging her to veto the bill. At least 40 of the 76 municipalities that would be affected, along with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, also sent letters to the governor, according to Ken Strobeck, the league’s executive director.

Arizona: Plan to Repay Russell Pearce’s Recall Election Expenses Fails | Fox News

Friends of the former Arizona state senator known nationally for his tough stance on U.S.-Mexico border policy failed to pass legislation that would have repaid him for expenses related to fighting the voter effort that removed him from office. Critics said it would be outrageous to reimburse Russell Pearce, the suburban Phoenix Republican who had been one of Arizona’s most powerful politicians. Democratic Sen. Linda López said she’d received more than 150 emails critical of the proposal, “and they’re still coming in. People don’t know it’s not going anywhere.”

Arizona: Bill limiting local election dates goes to Governor | Arizona Daily Star

Insisting they know better, state lawmakers voted Monday to limit local elections to just two days every two years. HB 2826 says, with only a few exceptions, cities, counties, school districts and other government entities could have their elections only at the same time as the state. That means the same days as the statewide primary, which usually occurs in late August, and the general election in November. The 32-28 House vote came over the objections of lawmakers from both parties who questioned why the state should overrule what local communities have decided. “Local rule is still the best rule,” complained Rep. Cecil Ash, R-Mesa. It also presages a legal fight.

Arizona: Redistricting maps challenged by lawsuits | Arizona Republic

Arizona’s contentious redistricting process heated up again with the filing Friday of a pair of Republican-backed lawsuits challenging new congressional and legislative districts approved by a state commission. Each lawsuit asked a court to declare one of the maps unconstitutional and to order the state’s redistricting commission to draw a replacement map for use in elections after this year. However, the lawsuit challenging the legislative districts asked that a three-judge panel of federal judges draw an interim legislative map for use in this year’s elections. The suit filed in state court to challenge the map of nine U.S. House districts doesn’t ask for an interim map.

Arizona: U.S. Justice Department signs off on district maps | Arizona Republic

The U.S. Department of Justice approved Arizona’s new legislative map Thursday, making official what most candidates are already taking for granted. The approval marks the first time in four decades that Arizona’s legislative map has won Justice Department approval on the first submission, according to attorneys for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The agency had no objections to the map, which the commission approved in January. It creates 30 new legislative districts across the state to reflect population shifts over the past decade. Most candidates eyeing a seat in the Legislature have already relied on the new map as they have declared their intentions to run.

Arizona: State heading back to Supreme Court over voter ID law | New York Amsterdam News

The state of Arizona wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeal by the federal government of a law that would allow them to practice their own enforcement regarding immigrants. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Arizona’s requirement that voters show identification at the polls, but disallowed the requirement to show proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. Known as SB 1070, the law, if overturned by the court, would allow Arizona’s law enforcement officials to arrest and detain individuals who might be undocumented immigrants without any federal oversight or regard for federal priorities. Under the law, failure to comply with registration requirements would result in an inability to vote in elections.

Arizona: Ruling on voter requirement mixed – will be appealed to Supreme Court | azcentral.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has struck down Arizona’s 2004 voter-approved requirement that residents show proof of citizenship when they register to vote — at least on federal registration forms. The state can still require proof from voters submitting a state registration form, which is typically the form voters get from their county recorder’s offices and through the Motor Vehicle Division’s website. The 11-judge “en banc” appeals-court panel on Tuesday upheld the portion of the law requiring voters to show identification at the polls. Attorney General Tom Horne said he would appeal the portion of the law the panel overturned to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, who wrote in the majority opinion, said the Constitution requires the court to “safeguard” certain federal powers, including regulating federal elections. 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 proof.