Arizona federal only ballot Part 2, What triggered creation?, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al v Arizona, Proposition 200 required proof of citizenship to register
The Supreme Court ruling only addressed voter registration. Why did SOS Bennett create a federal only ballot? Is it legal?
Arizona federal only ballot Part 2, What triggered creation?, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al v Arizona, Proposition 200 required proof of citizenship to register
*** Part 2 ***
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al v Arizona
before the US Supreme Court
PETITIONER: Arizona, et al.
RESPONDENT: Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et al
“Facts of the case
On November 2, 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or casting a ballot. Shortly after the Proposition passed, a group of plaintiffs, including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona sued the state. They argued that Proposition 200 violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendments, and is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The district court denied a preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency injunction to allow the case to proceed without allowing Proposition 200 to affect the 2006 election. The Supreme Court vacated the emergency injunction and remanded the case for consideration on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction and held that the Proposition was not an unconstitutional poll tax and did not violate the NVRA. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for Arizona. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part by holding that the Proposition was not an unconstitutional poll tax and did not violate the NVRA, but that the NVRA preempts the Proposition's requirements.”
“Conclusion
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that NVRA preempts other voter registration requirements. To allow states to impose additional requirements would allow them to reject voter registrations applicants who met the federal requirements to vote, which would defeat the purpose of the Act. However, the Court also held that Arizona may petition to have more requirements added to the federal standard.”
“Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the states have the right to determine voter qualifications for federal elections. He also argued that the NVRA only requires the states to use the federal requirements as part of the state's voter registration process.”
The Supreme Court ruling only applies to voter registration.
So why did Arizona Secretary of State create a federal only ballot?
And was it legal?
“Bennett created the system last year after the U.S. Supreme Court said Arizona can’t require additional identification from voters using the federal “motor-voter” form. Attorney General Tom Horne said that conflicted with state law requiring proof of citizenship.
So Arizona let people who didn’t provide ID vote just for federal races, meaning they couldn’t vote for statewide officers such as the governor or state legislators. Instead, those who registered using only the federal form were given ballots with only U.S. House of Representatives races on them.”