Horne right on proof of citizenship
From the political notebook:
* Attorney General Tom Horne got the stuffing kicked out of him last week for an opinion saying that those who use the federal registration form in Arizona can only vote in elections for federal office.
Critics overlooked a couple of fairly important points: As a matter of law, Horne is probably right. And as attorney general, no other opinion would have been responsible.
In 1993, Congress enacted the motor voter law which required states to accept a federal voting registration form for federal elections. No one asserts that Congress has the constitutional authority to dictate to states who can vote in state and local elections.
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, which, among other things, requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and lists various documents that can be used to establish that. This requirement has not been successfully challenged and remains valid law.
The federal form merely requires attestation of citizenship, not the proof required under state law. To reconcile that, county recorders had been asking those who submit the federal form for the additional proof of citizenship required by state law.
A few months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Arizona had to accept the federal form for federal elections. It also affirmed Arizona’s right to require proof of citizenship but said the state had to go through federal procedures for making that part of the federal form first. Horne and Secretary of State Ken Bennett are in the process of doing that.
In the interim, Arizona has to accept the federal form as it is for voting for federal offices. But the Prop. 200 proof-of-citizenship requirement is still valid state law.
As attorney general, Horne can’t pretend that a valid state law doesn’t exist. He has to give it whatever effect he can. And since no one has successfully challenged the legality of the proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections, Horne correctly concluded that it remains in effect.
A dual voting list may be difficult to administer, awkward, or bad public policy. But none of that is Horne’s business. His job is to opine on what the law requires, giving maximum effect to valid state laws. He did that.
* If you become jaded enough, and vested little hope in politics to begin with, it can be a source of amusement. I’ve not reached H.L. Mencken territory yet, but I’m headed in that direction.
In fact, the feeding frenzy that attacked Horne is most profitably viewed from a Menckenesque perspective.
The proof-of-citizenship requirement was approved by voters in a ballot measure. So, all Horne did was give maximum effect to what voters decided.
A couple of weeks ago, the state Supreme Court spanked the Arizona Legislature for failing to follow a voter mandate to increase education spending to reflect inflation.
The tut-tutters came out in force. The will of the voters expressed at the ballot box is a sacred trust! How dare those troglodytes at the Legislature ignore it!
When Horne issued his opinion, many of these same scolds mounted their turrets and unleashed a fusillade of tut-tuts at him for … not ignoring the will of the voters.
* Another campaign finance challenge was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week. This one claims that the federal aggregate limits on what someone can contribute to candidates and political parties are unconstitutional.
The good-government types, who want to limit the influence of money in campaigns, are defending them, as usual. After 40 years of futility, you’d think that they would move on to Plan B.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that people have a right to spend what they want on political speech. All that the various restrictions on donations to candidates have done is to channel that money into less transparent activities. Trying to force disclosure of so-called dark money is an elusive quest.
What is contributed directly to candidates is at least disclosed. And the more money candidates can raise, the more their voices can be heard in campaigns. In contested races, too often the candidates are becoming bystanders while independent groups slug it out.
At this point, eliminating limits on contributions to candidates is the good-government reform that would do the most good.
(column for 10.13.13)
* Attorney General Tom Horne got the stuffing kicked out of him last week for an opinion saying that those who use the federal registration form in Arizona can only vote in elections for federal office.
Critics overlooked a couple of fairly important points: As a matter of law, Horne is probably right. And as attorney general, no other opinion would have been responsible.
In 1993, Congress enacted the motor voter law which required states to accept a federal voting registration form for federal elections. No one asserts that Congress has the constitutional authority to dictate to states who can vote in state and local elections.
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, which, among other things, requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and lists various documents that can be used to establish that. This requirement has not been successfully challenged and remains valid law.
The federal form merely requires attestation of citizenship, not the proof required under state law. To reconcile that, county recorders had been asking those who submit the federal form for the additional proof of citizenship required by state law.
A few months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Arizona had to accept the federal form for federal elections. It also affirmed Arizona’s right to require proof of citizenship but said the state had to go through federal procedures for making that part of the federal form first. Horne and Secretary of State Ken Bennett are in the process of doing that.
In the interim, Arizona has to accept the federal form as it is for voting for federal offices. But the Prop. 200 proof-of-citizenship requirement is still valid state law.
As attorney general, Horne can’t pretend that a valid state law doesn’t exist. He has to give it whatever effect he can. And since no one has successfully challenged the legality of the proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections, Horne correctly concluded that it remains in effect.
A dual voting list may be difficult to administer, awkward, or bad public policy. But none of that is Horne’s business. His job is to opine on what the law requires, giving maximum effect to valid state laws. He did that.
* If you become jaded enough, and vested little hope in politics to begin with, it can be a source of amusement. I’ve not reached H.L. Mencken territory yet, but I’m headed in that direction.
In fact, the feeding frenzy that attacked Horne is most profitably viewed from a Menckenesque perspective.
The proof-of-citizenship requirement was approved by voters in a ballot measure. So, all Horne did was give maximum effect to what voters decided.
A couple of weeks ago, the state Supreme Court spanked the Arizona Legislature for failing to follow a voter mandate to increase education spending to reflect inflation.
The tut-tutters came out in force. The will of the voters expressed at the ballot box is a sacred trust! How dare those troglodytes at the Legislature ignore it!
When Horne issued his opinion, many of these same scolds mounted their turrets and unleashed a fusillade of tut-tuts at him for … not ignoring the will of the voters.
* Another campaign finance challenge was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week. This one claims that the federal aggregate limits on what someone can contribute to candidates and political parties are unconstitutional.
The good-government types, who want to limit the influence of money in campaigns, are defending them, as usual. After 40 years of futility, you’d think that they would move on to Plan B.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that people have a right to spend what they want on political speech. All that the various restrictions on donations to candidates have done is to channel that money into less transparent activities. Trying to force disclosure of so-called dark money is an elusive quest.
What is contributed directly to candidates is at least disclosed. And the more money candidates can raise, the more their voices can be heard in campaigns. In contested races, too often the candidates are becoming bystanders while independent groups slug it out.
At this point, eliminating limits on contributions to candidates is the good-government reform that would do the most good.
(column for 10.13.13)
azcentral.com has switched to the Facebook comment system on its blogs. Existing blog comments will display, but new comments will only be accepted via the Facebook comment system. To begin commenting, you must be logged into an active personal account on Facebook. Once you're logged in, you will be able to comment. While we welcome you to join conversations, readers are responsible for their comments and abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. We reserve the right, without warning or notification, to remove comments and block users judged to violate our Terms of Service and Rules of Engagement. Facebook comments FAQ
No comments:
Post a Comment