Post by Okwes on Sept 23, 2006 11:24:14 GMT -5
Arizona Indians denied voter ID injunction
Posted: September 15, 2006
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
PHOENIX - A federal judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction sought by the Navajo Nation and other plaintiffs to halt implementation of Proposition 200, which requires identification to vote in state and federal elections in Arizona.
As Arizona voters went to the polls to vote in the primary on Sept. 12, the Navajo Nation announced that U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver denied motions for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the new law. Silver heard two days of testimony, Aug. 30 - 31, from plaintiffs including the Navajo Nation.
Navajo Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan said Navajos remain at a disadvantage in voting and the lawsuit raises vital questions regarding voting rights and civil rights.
''The Navajo Nation is often in a unique situation because of the remoteness of our communities and lack of access to many services. To impose this requirement on our people may have an effect on whether or not the votes of the Navajo people are counted,'' Morgan said.
The Navajo Nation filed suit against the state of Arizona earlier this year regarding Proposition 200, passed in 2004. Although the Navajo Nation sought a separate hearing, its claims were consolidated with other plaintiffs filing suit against the state.
In May, a coalition of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., Hopi Tribe, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, People For the American Way Foundation and state Rep. Steve Gallardo. The coalition is represented by a diverse legal team including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, the American Association of Retired Persons Foundation and others.
Raphael Bear, president of ITCA, an organization of 20 Arizona Indian tribes, pointed out that the struggle for Indian voting rights in Arizona was fought and won in court by two members of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation: Frank Harrison and Harry Austin.
''The journey for Native Americans in Arizona to the voting booth has been too long and particularly painful. Not until 1948, led by members of my nation, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, did the Arizona Supreme Court recognize that Indians had the right to vote in this state,'' Bear said.
''Proposition 200 destroyed much of our success. Today, ITCA has asked the federal court to remove the new burdens of Proposition 200, which fall disproportionately on the members of our tribes.''
In the lawsuit, the Navajo Nation claims that the new laws are discriminatory and unduly burden Navajo electors' right to vote.
Navajos, protected under the Voting Rights Act, are less likely to have the forms of identification that can be used as identification at the polls than other citizens of Arizona due to historical, socio-economic and other factors, according to the Navajo Nation Council's Speaker's Office.
In addition, Navajos have less opportunity than other citizens to participate in elections through the early ballot process because many Navajos require official translation assistance in order to complete election ballots and because of the problems with the mail service in obtaining and requesting an early ballot, the speaker's office said.
Under the new law, Arizona voters were required to present identification in order to vote at the polls in the primary election. A valid government-issued identification with photo is acceptable. Voters lacking photo identification may provide two forms of non-photo identification, including an Indian census card, tribal enrollment card, utility bills or bank statement up to 90 days old, Arizona vehicle registration or other specified documents.
The new law requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, and opponents say it unfairly targets migrants.
Although the motions for a preliminary injunction were denied, parties have been ordered to submit briefs on whether the voter identification requirements for voter registration constitute a poll tax.
Silver also ordered the Navajo Nation to submit additional briefing on its VRA and Civil Rights Act claims by Sept. 25. CRA laws, including the VRA, were implemented to protect the voting rights of minority citizens.
Morgan said because most Navajos vote at the polls on election day, Navajos are subjected to more burdensome requirements for voting than those individuals voting at precincts off the reservation.
A hearing on the Navajo Nation's VRA and CRA claims is scheduled to be held Oct. 19.
Morgan said, ''It certainly was a disappointment that our motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, but we now have the opportunity to present our Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims separately.''
Silver's order stated that the court was reluctant to grant a motion for preliminary injunction once voting has begun. Early voting in the primary elections began Aug. 10.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Janice Brewer, named in the plaintiffs' lawsuit, said the law was a protection against voter fraud.
''Today's court ruling assures the integrity of this process by retaining the requirements established by Proposition 200,'' Brewer said in a written statement after Silver's decision.
However, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington said Proposition 200, known also as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, is a violation of rights and impractical.
Barbara Arnwine, executive director, said, ''Proposition 200 will severely restrict the ability of countless citizens to participate in the political process.
''The law is impractical in that it forces voter registration groups to obtain proof of citizenship in order to register a new voter. These groups cannot be expected to carry a photocopy machine around when registering new voters door-to-door,'' Arnwine said.
Attorneys vowed to continue the battle over Prop 200. Within hours of Silver's ruling, lawyers for some of the challengers filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
Posted: September 15, 2006
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
PHOENIX - A federal judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction sought by the Navajo Nation and other plaintiffs to halt implementation of Proposition 200, which requires identification to vote in state and federal elections in Arizona.
As Arizona voters went to the polls to vote in the primary on Sept. 12, the Navajo Nation announced that U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver denied motions for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the new law. Silver heard two days of testimony, Aug. 30 - 31, from plaintiffs including the Navajo Nation.
Navajo Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan said Navajos remain at a disadvantage in voting and the lawsuit raises vital questions regarding voting rights and civil rights.
''The Navajo Nation is often in a unique situation because of the remoteness of our communities and lack of access to many services. To impose this requirement on our people may have an effect on whether or not the votes of the Navajo people are counted,'' Morgan said.
The Navajo Nation filed suit against the state of Arizona earlier this year regarding Proposition 200, passed in 2004. Although the Navajo Nation sought a separate hearing, its claims were consolidated with other plaintiffs filing suit against the state.
In May, a coalition of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., Hopi Tribe, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, People For the American Way Foundation and state Rep. Steve Gallardo. The coalition is represented by a diverse legal team including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, the American Association of Retired Persons Foundation and others.
Raphael Bear, president of ITCA, an organization of 20 Arizona Indian tribes, pointed out that the struggle for Indian voting rights in Arizona was fought and won in court by two members of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation: Frank Harrison and Harry Austin.
''The journey for Native Americans in Arizona to the voting booth has been too long and particularly painful. Not until 1948, led by members of my nation, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, did the Arizona Supreme Court recognize that Indians had the right to vote in this state,'' Bear said.
''Proposition 200 destroyed much of our success. Today, ITCA has asked the federal court to remove the new burdens of Proposition 200, which fall disproportionately on the members of our tribes.''
In the lawsuit, the Navajo Nation claims that the new laws are discriminatory and unduly burden Navajo electors' right to vote.
Navajos, protected under the Voting Rights Act, are less likely to have the forms of identification that can be used as identification at the polls than other citizens of Arizona due to historical, socio-economic and other factors, according to the Navajo Nation Council's Speaker's Office.
In addition, Navajos have less opportunity than other citizens to participate in elections through the early ballot process because many Navajos require official translation assistance in order to complete election ballots and because of the problems with the mail service in obtaining and requesting an early ballot, the speaker's office said.
Under the new law, Arizona voters were required to present identification in order to vote at the polls in the primary election. A valid government-issued identification with photo is acceptable. Voters lacking photo identification may provide two forms of non-photo identification, including an Indian census card, tribal enrollment card, utility bills or bank statement up to 90 days old, Arizona vehicle registration or other specified documents.
The new law requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, and opponents say it unfairly targets migrants.
Although the motions for a preliminary injunction were denied, parties have been ordered to submit briefs on whether the voter identification requirements for voter registration constitute a poll tax.
Silver also ordered the Navajo Nation to submit additional briefing on its VRA and Civil Rights Act claims by Sept. 25. CRA laws, including the VRA, were implemented to protect the voting rights of minority citizens.
Morgan said because most Navajos vote at the polls on election day, Navajos are subjected to more burdensome requirements for voting than those individuals voting at precincts off the reservation.
A hearing on the Navajo Nation's VRA and CRA claims is scheduled to be held Oct. 19.
Morgan said, ''It certainly was a disappointment that our motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, but we now have the opportunity to present our Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims separately.''
Silver's order stated that the court was reluctant to grant a motion for preliminary injunction once voting has begun. Early voting in the primary elections began Aug. 10.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Janice Brewer, named in the plaintiffs' lawsuit, said the law was a protection against voter fraud.
''Today's court ruling assures the integrity of this process by retaining the requirements established by Proposition 200,'' Brewer said in a written statement after Silver's decision.
However, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington said Proposition 200, known also as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, is a violation of rights and impractical.
Barbara Arnwine, executive director, said, ''Proposition 200 will severely restrict the ability of countless citizens to participate in the political process.
''The law is impractical in that it forces voter registration groups to obtain proof of citizenship in order to register a new voter. These groups cannot be expected to carry a photocopy machine around when registering new voters door-to-door,'' Arnwine said.
Attorneys vowed to continue the battle over Prop 200. Within hours of Silver's ruling, lawyers for some of the challengers filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.