First, a recently enacted law in Arizona:
In the closing hours of this year’s legislative session, Republican lawmakers pushed through an overhaul of Arizona’s election laws.
It wasn’t an easy lift. Parts of the legislation were contained in separate bills that had stalled earlier in the session before getting folded into House Bill 2305 as adjournment approached. HB 2305 died on the Senate floor on the final night of the session as GOP supporters struggled to round up enough backing to get it across the finish line, but the legislation then came back to life via a reconsideration motion. It passed with the bare minimum 16 votes necessary when Senator Steve Pierce switched from opposing the bill to supporting it after the Prescott Republican was the target of an intense lobbying effort that included a phone call from National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Daniel Scarpinato.
Supporters of the bill say they are just trying to make a few administrative changes to make the voting process more efficient and eliminate the potential for fraud, but critics of the legislation say it’s aimed at suppressing voters—particularly the growing Latino slice of the electorate—and making it more difficult to get an initiative on the ballot.
The changes are drastic enough that a coalition of different groups—including the Arizona Democratic Party, Mi Familia Vota, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood Arizona, and more than half a dozen union groups—have launched a referendum campaign to try to force a vote on the new law on the November 2014 ballot. The group must collect more than 86,000 valid signatures from voters before Sept. 12 in order to put the measure on hold until voters can decide whether it should stand.
On Tuesday, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (R) certified that a referendum on the law, known as HB 2305, will be on the ballot in next year’s general election.
HB 2305 passed earlier this year. Considered a voter suppression effort by opponents, the law would raise the bar for third parties getting on the ballot, add obstacles to citizens initiative efforts, and kick voters off that state’s permanent early voting list if they fail to vote in two consecutive elections, among other things. The referendum effort began just days after the law was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in June.
Robbie Sherwood, a spokesperson for the referendum effort, touted how quickly the signatures had been gathered.
But the fight may not be over. Barrett Marson, a spokesman for two political committees that support the law, told Tucson Weekly that his groups will go to court to try to invalidate some of the signatures collected.
“It’s still early in the process,” Marson said. “There are thousands of signatures gathered by circulators who have questionable backgrounds and residency issues. Actually, let me change the word questionable to felonious.”
These referendums on voting rights are a great idea. It’s an opportunity to put voters on notice that their rights are being narrowed and gives them a chance to do something about it without waiting for lawyers or a court.
This Arizona referendum is limited to election issues, but when we’re passing one petition for signatures we may as well pass two and doing that is a great way to link voting rights to other issues. Combining and connecting the voting rights referendum with something that has broad appeal (like an increase in the minimum wage, just throwing one possibility out there!) would be wonderful, because voting rights and issues that benefit working class people should be a natural fit, but haven’t necessarily been linked in the past. I don’t know if one can do that in Arizona – referendum rules vary from state to state – but if you’re gathering signatures anyway, who not link issues?
I saw this work in Ohio when we passed petitions to repeal Ohio’s union-busting law along with a petition to “stay” a new voter suppression law. People who may had never given a second thought to voting rights (rural white people who have a driver’s license) were all of a sudden enthusiastic about backing voting rights protections. We were able to connect voting rights to their labor issue and remind them that in a state like Ohio they rely on a coalition that includes people who are targeted by suppression efforts, even if they are not targeted.
pharniel
There’s a reason Michigan’s constitution limits referendums to single issues to prevent bundling – but there’s no reason not to get multiple ballot questions together to drive turnout.
fuckwit
The real power here is when white, christian, middle-aged, educated, middle-class women in red states realize they are being denied their right to vote. That’s the end of these voter suppression efforts. Armies of women will turn out to vote, to protest, to press litigation. They’ll join forces with Latino and African American activists and then it’s game over for the Rethugs. That’ll be the bridge too far, and it’s already been crossed in Texas and probably AZ as well.
boatboy_srq
Part of the problem with the Teahad is that it has convinced itself that it represents the true majority, and every time elections prove contrary then there has to be something wrong – and the only thing they can think of is that someone evil finagled something nefarious to defeat them. Hence all the “voter fraud”, “illegals” and the scary-Other-person stuff.
piratedan
well they happy friendly GOP mafioso in Phoenix are quite aware of how tenuous their grasp is… when the independent board that drew up the Congressional districts actually put in place a fair map leaving the majority of the districts as now being dominant by one party or another, AZ turning up with 5 Dems in Congress. Should the same thing happen at the state level, their gerrymandering of the districts would be effectively over and AZ would be decidedly purple again. Anything coming out of the state offices about elections should be seen thru this filter as they know that their balance of power is now potentially at risk, more so if the GOTV drives taking place on the reservations and in the barrios are effective.
burnspbesq
I’m a Californian, and have lived through Prop. 13, Prop. 187, and Prop. 8, so I assume you’ll understand when I say that while I think forcing this to a referendum is a great idea, in general I look on the initiative and referendum processes with horror and revulsion. Kinda like walking out the front door in the morning and finding a tiger sleeping on the steps.
Kay
@burnspbesq:
I agree. I hate them. But we need them, right now, so I’m determined to be short-sighted :)
I’ve already suffered! Ohio conservatives amend the state constitution every 5 minutes, whenever they need a bump in turnout to drag some loser over the finish line. They outlawed the health care law by referendum, you know, in theory. Definite downside.
Anonymous At Work
3rd party ballot access and citizen initiatives aren’t per se good items. But restricting voting access is per se wrong. And most people, when asked to choose on that issue, tend to get emotional about keeping it open.
karl
In Az petitions can be — and usually are — bundled. They are usually (my experience) offered by paid signature gatherers as a like-minded group of issues but occasionally you’ll see a mix of left and right-leaning proposals in one bunch.
fuckwit
@boatboy_srq: Right. Anyone not white, christian, gun-owning, male, property-owning, straight, and old, is NOT a legitimate voter, and their vote is fraudulent.
Laconia
Huh. Daniel Scarpinato was my boss once upon a time at the college newspaper. Unfortunate that he turned out to be a complete shitstain, he seemed like an ok guy when I knew him.
e.a.f.
What amazes me with all these American states implementing “anti-fraud” voter laws, is that there was just so much fraud going on at voting time in the U.S.A. If all these states thought there was all this fraud going on, what the hell were they doing for all those previous years?
Guess there really wasn’t any fraud, they just want to make sure no one opposes them at election time. So much for freedom in the U.S.A.
Alabama has a new method of dealing with people who don’t support their republicans. They beat, mace, arrest, and jail them. The 39th best independant legal blog in the U.S.A. comes from Alabama. It is written by Roger Shuler, Legal Schnauzer, blog. He published things some Republicans didn’t like. They had a retired circuit judge, Claud Neilson, issue an injunction to stop Mr. Shuler from publishing. He didn’t obey and viola, he is in jail, indefintely. Seems it is in violation of the First Amendment and Supreme Court case Near vs. Minnesota, but never let it be said Alabama lets the law get in the way of doing what they want.
So much for the U.S.A. being a democracy. It is looking more and more like China and Russia.