2004 Arizona Proposition 200

Last updated

Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act", was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires: (a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; (b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and (c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.

Contents

Authors of the ballot measure, the "Protect Arizona Now" committee, claimed that the provision of state identification and public benefits to individuals without adequately verifying their immigration status gave rise to opportunities for voter fraud and imposed economic hardship on the state.

Opponents of the ballot measure asserted that it was anti-immigrant and reminiscent of California's 1994 Proposition 187, as well as disputed the existence of voter fraud and argued that immigrants were important contributors to the state's economy.

Proponents

Two separate, rival groups supported Proposition 200. The first group was the proposition's sponsor, the Protect Arizona Now (PAN) committee, led by Kathy McKee and supported at the national level by the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (PEB). The second group was the Yes on 200 committee, led by Rusty Childress, a Phoenix-area car dealer, and supported at the national level by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).[ citation needed ] There was a split within PAN, which McKee described as an "attempted hijacking of a local effort by greedy, out-of-state interests"; this split highlighted an ongoing feud within the immigration reduction movement between FAIR and the other two groups dating back to at least 2003, with CCN and PEB issuing frequent statements accusing FAIR (as well as NumbersUSA) of being "reform lite" and "undermining real immigration reform."[ citation needed ]

PAN was formed by McKee and Childress, who became its chair and treasurer, respectively. The PAN National Advisory Board was chaired by Dr. Virginia Abernethy, and included Dr. David Pimentel and Marvin Gregory. Childress later joined a separate effort, Yes On 200, organized by FAIR.[ citation needed ]

During the signature gathering campaign, McKee accused Childress of withholding funds and petitions from PAN and fired him. Childress sued McKee over custody of PAN's signatures and funds, but the court ruled in favor of McKee. Childress and the two most prominent supporters of the initiative within the Arizona state legislature, Russell Pearce and Randy Graf, then formed a separate organization, Yes On 200, which was funded almost entirely by out-of-state interests.[ citation needed ]

When FAIR began an independent signature gathering campaign to collect the remaining signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot, McKee accused FAIR of attempting a hostile takeover of PAN.[ citation needed ] When McKee named Abernethy, an avowed "ethnic separatist," as the chair of PAN's national advisory board, FAIR responded by issuing a press release calling for both McKee and Abernethy to resign from PAN and saying that Abernethy's views were "repugnant, divisive and do not represent the views of the vast majority of Arizonans who support Proposition 200." Abernethy's appointment drew harsh criticism from an anti-bigotry group based in Chicago, which noted her "leadership roles in other extremist organizations," such as The Occidental Quarterly and the Council of Conservative Citizens. [1]

Campaign

On July 5, 2004, Protect Arizona NOW's Chairman, Kathy McKee, pursuant to Arizona law, submitted 190,887 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's office, surprising critics, who had believed organizers would not be able to garner enough signatures before the deadline.[ citation needed ] A counter-organization, the Statue of Liberty Coalition, was formed to block Proposition 200, claiming the initiative was racist and would violate Latino civil rights.[ citation needed ] Opposition to Proposition 200 was bipartisan, including Senator John McCain (R), Senator Jon Kyl (R), Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the Arizona Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the AFL-CIO. [2] Tamar Jacoby, a writer on immigration-related issues in articles for The Wall Street Journal [3] and the Los Angeles Times . [4]

Supporters partly relied for justification on a 2004 FAIR study that estimated that Arizona taxpayers were annually paying $1 billion to cover the education, uncompensated health care, and incarceration costs of illegal immigration, net of the taxes paid by the illegal immigrants. [5] This study appeared to contradict a 2003 study performed by a team at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and sponsored by Wells Fargo and the Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, which estimated that immigrants were annually contributing $318 million more in income and sales taxes than they were costing the state in services and uncompensated health care. [6] However, it was not clear whether that estimate was based on all immigrants or only illegal immigrants.

In November 2004, the electorate passed Proposition 200, with 56% of voters voting in the affirmative. [7] Exit polls found that 47% of Latino voters voted in favor of the initiative. [8]

Implementation

A substantial legal battle erupted over the precise definition of "public benefits." Arizona's Attorney General ruled that the law pertains to only discretionary state programs. Federally funded entitlements like food stamps and subsidized school lunches are examples of public benefits to which, given the Attorney General's finding, the new law would not apply. PAN interpreted the proposition to apply the welfare portion of the initiative to the nearly 60 programs contained in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 46, "Welfare."

Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, at least one lawsuit related to Proposition 200 is still pending. "Yes on 200" filed a post-election lawsuit, initially dismissed in the lower court but currently on appeal, saying that the Attorney General overstepped his bounds when he narrowed the definition of "public benefits."

On December 23, 2004, the federal appeals court in Tucson removed an earlier restraining order that had kept the state from implementing the law. The entire law, with one exception, is in effect, using the definition of "public benefits" promulgated by the Governor and Attorney General. State, county, and city workers may be fined up to $700 for each instance in which they provide such benefits to persons who cannot produce evidence of citizenship.

Kathy McKee has since started a new group, Protect America NOW, to support similar initiatives in other states.

Voter registration and identification at the polls

Proposition 200 required, among other things, proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter identification at the polling place. No major elections took place after its adoption before November 7, 2006, and the actual implementation of these two provisions of the proposition remained unclear. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of these requirements upon voters, arguing that such a law could be used to discriminate against ethnic groups, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

On October 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily suspended these requirements, a little over a month before the election. [9] However, the ruling was stayed fifteen days later by the U.S. Supreme Court. [10] [11]

In October 2010, the Ninth Circuit held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid. [12] However, in April 2011, the court granted Arizona's petition for en banc review of this ruling, and it heard oral arguments on June 21, 2011. [13]

In April 2012, the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid. [14] The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012. [15]

In July 2012, Arizona submitted to the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the state's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA. [16] The Court granted the petition in October 2012, [17] and it heard oral arguments on March 18, 2013. [18] On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 7–2 vote with Justice Antonin Scalia delivering the Court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 California Proposition 187</span> Referendum on illegal immigrants

California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum on November 8, 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit the day after its passage, and found unconstitutional by a federal district court on November 11. In 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California ballot proposition</span> Statewide referendum item in California

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).

Virginia Deane Abernethy is an American anthropologist, far-right activist, white nationalist, and self-described "ethnic separatist." She is professor emerita of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. She has published research on population demography and immigration. She ran for Vice President of the United States in 2012 alongside Merlin Miller for the American Third Position, a party that promotes white nationalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration reduction in the United States</span> Governmental policy and social reform in the United States

Immigration reduction refers to a government and social policy in the United States that advocates a reduction in the amount of immigration allowed into the country. Steps advocated for reducing the numbers of immigrants include advocating stronger action to prevent illegal entry and illegal migration, and reductions in non-immigrant temporary work visas. Some advocate tightening the requirements for legal immigration requirements to reduce numbers or move the proportions of legal immigrants away from those on family reunification programs to skills-based criteria.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kris Kobach</span> American lawyer and politician (born 1966)

Kris William Kobach is an American lawyer and politician who has served as the attorney general of Kansas since 2023. He previously served as the 31st secretary of state of Kansas from 2011 to 2019. A former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, Kobach rose to national prominence over his support for anti-immigration advocacy, including involvement in the implementation of high-profile anti-illegal immigration ordinances in various American cities. Kobach is also known for his calls for stronger voter ID laws in the United States. He has made claims about the extent of election fraud in the United States that some studies have shown to be unsubstantiated.

Defend Colorado Now (DCN) was a ballot initiative introduced in January 2006 to amend the constitution of Colorado to deny non-emergency public services that are not required by federal law to illegal immigrants in Colorado. It was similar to the recently approved Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), which denied public services to illegal aliens and California Proposition 187 (1994) which was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Appeals Court.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is a national non-profit civil rights organization formed in 1968 by Jack Greenberg to protect the rights of Latinos in the United States. Founded in San Antonio, Texas, it is currently headquartered in Los Angeles, California and maintains regional offices in Sacramento, San Antonio, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment on taxation

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russell Pearce</span> American law enforcement officer and politician (1947–2023)

Russell Keith Pearce was an American politician who was a Republican (GOP) member of the Arizona State Senate. He rose to national prominence as the primary sponsor of Arizona SB1070, a controversial anti-illegal immigrant measure that was signed into law in 2010. He was elected President of the Arizona Senate when the Senate began its January 2011 term but then suffered a dramatic reversal of fortune when he was ousted in a November 2011 recall election, the first legislator in Arizona history to be so removed from office. He served as Vice-Chair of the Arizona GOP, but he resigned the position in September 2014 after controversy over a eugenicist comment about forced sterilization of poor women on Medicaid. His politics were widely described as far-right.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Successful referendum on banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 5</span>

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Arizona</span>

Cannabis in Arizona is legal for recreational use. A 2020 initiative to legalize recreational use passed with 60% of the vote. Possession and cultivation of recreational cannabis became legal on November 30, 2020, with the first state-licensed sales occurring on January 22, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fairness Project</span> Charitable organization in the U.S.

The Fairness Project is a United States 501(c)(4) charitable organization created in October 2015. They promote general economic and social justice throughout the US by the use of ballot measures to circumvent deadlocks in law changes by the legislative and executive branches of government. They act as a national body by supporting state organizations and campaigns with targeted funding rather than by direct campaigning. They support the gathering of signatures to meet the variable requirements to trigger ballots in states and then aid the campaigns with early financial backing, strategic advice, and various campaign tools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Idaho Proposition 2</span>

2018 Idaho Proposition 2 is an approved ballot initiative that was included on the 2018 General Election ballot on November 6, 2018. Idaho's Proposition 2 is an initiative which addressed the proposed Medicaid gap within the state. This Ballot Initiative was approved and qualified to be included for voting on July 17, 2018, through campaigning and petitioning for signatures to acquire the necessary support of the voting Idaho population to be included for state-wide voting through the 2018 General Election ballot. This initiative moved to expand Medicaid to persons who did not previously qualify. Proposition 2 would expand Medicaid coverage to persons under the age of 65 if their income is below 133% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) and are unable to gain medical insurance or coverage through other means.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 Missouri Amendment 2</span> Ballot initiative to expand Medicaid

2020 Missouri Amendment 2, also known as the Medicaid Expansion Initiative, was a ballot measure to amend the Constitution of Missouri to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The initiative was on the August 4, 2020, primary ballot and passed with 53.27% of the vote. Following previous successful Medicaid expansion initiatives in other states, Republican lawmakers in Nebraska and Utah added work requirements to their states' Medicaid expansions, which supporters aimed to prevent by proposing state constitutional amendments for future Medicaid expansion initiatives. Opponents sued to prevent the initiative from being voted on, but courts ruled in the measure's favor. The measure was supported most in urban areas and opposed in rural areas. After a delay due to a lack of funding from the Missouri General Assembly and resulting litigation, the initiative was implemented in October 2021, albeit slowly. Republican lawmakers attempted to roll back the program and add a work requirement through a state constitutional amendment, which failed after the United States Supreme Court effectively prevented the implementation of one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCR 1044</span> Arizona Immigration Legislation

The Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 or Arizona In-Sate Tuition for Non-Citizen Resident Measure is a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election in Arizona. SCR 1044 would repeal provisions of Proposition 300 passed in 2006. SCR 1044 would give voters the opportunity to allow all students, including Arizonan Dreamers, to receive in-state college tuition when a student (a) attended a school in Arizona for a minimum of two years and (b) graduated from a public school, private school, or homeschool in Arizona.

The following is a list of ballot measures, whether initiated by legislators or citizens, which have been certified to appear on various states' ballots during the 2024 United States elections as of 15 July 2024.

References

  1. Migrant Foe Tied to Racism, East Valley Tribune (Tempe, AZ), August 16, 2004 (updated October 6, 2011)
  2. "About.com Guide: Protect Arizona Now, Judy Hedding, August 23, 2004". Archived from the original on September 13, 2012. Retrieved December 14, 2012.
  3. Jacoby, Tamar. "Flawed proposition". The Wall Street Journal: September 16, 2004.
  4. Anti-Immigrant Fever in Arizona, Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2004
  5. The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans, FAIR, 2004
  6. The Economic Impact of Arizona-Mexico Relationship Archived 2011-07-30 at the Wayback Machine , Thunderbird School of Global Management, Wells Fargo, and Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, 2003
  7. CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures
  8. CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures / Arizona Proposition 200 / Exit Poll
  9. AZ Secretary of State - Press Release: Sec. of State Brewer Expresses Concern and Alarm over Court Decision Archived November 22, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  10. AZ Secretary of State - Press Release: Sec. of State Brewer Gets ID at Polls Reinstated Archived November 22, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  11. Purcell v. Gonzalez , On Applications of Stay, 549 U. S. 1 (October 20, 2006)(U.S. Supreme Court)
  12. Gonzales v. Arizona, No. 08-17094, (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2010)
  13. Arizona Attorney General Press Release: "Horne Argues in Favor of Arizona's Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote" Archived September 30, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  14. Gonzales v. Arizona, No. 08-17094 (en banc), (9th Cir. April 17, 2012) at 4148.
  15. Arizona, et al. v. Abeytia, et al., No. 11-A-1189 (order), (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012)
  16. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et. al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, July 16, 2012)
  17. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, Grant of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, October 15, 2012)
  18. Arizona, et. al., Petitioners, v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Transcript of Oral Argument Archived 2017-02-11 at the Wayback Machine (U.S. Supreme Court, March 18, 2013)
  19. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., No. 12-71 (opinion), (U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 2013)