AZ Proof of Citizenship is not Discriminatory!
Common sense seems to be filtering into the courtroom...
Prescott, AZ, March 1, 2024… Voters of all stripes have had a small victory in of all places, the court. Regardless of what you may think of the RNC writ large, there are many critical thinkers and professionals who are doing good work. The People have long reasoned that showing proof of citizenship to have a say in who is elected to spend our tax money —the currency of the ballot— is sound public policy. You either qualify or you don’t. Centuries ago only landowners were qualified to vote because they were viewed as not having a conflict of interest, which emerges when one receives taxpayer subsistence dollars. While I do not advocate that line of reasoning, it is illustrative to consider the conflict of interest.
But now we have upon us the very question pushed upon us in a different way. Under the Biden administration, we are seeing a significant number of illegal aliens, who are not qualified electors because of their status here in the United States, and how they got here, registering to vote with the help of federal agencies. Yes, they are facilitating criminal behavior. This pollutes the voter rolls and potentially disenfranchises legitimately registered voters of all political associations. How different the world would be if all of the illegals could be counted on to vote for the counter-party?
Discrimination: unjust or prejudicial treatment?
It is indeed interesting that the radical fringe left always seeks to advance the narrative that positive voter identification and verification of eligibility to vote as a condition of registration is somehow racist and discriminatory.
Stephen Kenny, Sr. Counsel for the RNC reports, “The RNC is an intervenor-defendant in this case. We plan to appeal this ruling and the ruling from September after the court issues a final judgment. In light of the fact that the Arizona attorney general is now a Democrat, it’s important that we and the legislature are in this case to provide a vigorous defense of the law. Our defense of the law at trial helped avoid a worse outcome—as the court rejected the plaintiffs’ intentional discrimination and Voting Rights Act Section 2 claims—and improved the factual record for appeal. We’re confident that we will ultimately prevail in the Ninth Circuit or the US Supreme Court.”
In her ruling Thursday, February 29th, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton concluded Arizona legislators did not discriminate when they adopted the laws and the state does have an interest in preventing voter fraud and limiting voting to those individuals eligible to vote. Thankfully the word discrimination has not been tortured to say something that is not a part of the common English definition. Here it seems that Judge Bolton has relied on the common definition of “discrimination.”
Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
Judge Bolton wrote, “Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concludes that Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide (documentary proof of citizenship).”
It’s a small victory, but an important one…
The notion that all potential voters must show proof of citizenship showing that one is a natural or naturalized citizen is but a low bar for citizens to step across to vote. After all, nearly every government service requires positive identification to receive taxpayer benefits.
Judge Bolton has a history in the voter registration arena. “In an earlier ruling, Bolton blocked a requirement in Arizona law that people who use a federal voter registration form provide additional proof of citizenship if they want to vote for president or use the state’s vote-by-mail system. The judge had ruled those provisions were trumped by a 1993 federal voter registration law.”1
Congress has demonstrated its feckless “leadership” and absurd double standard first by dabbling in state’s rights, and then once inserted into the question, failing to clearly and unambiguously define individual voter registration requirements to qualify as a legitimate elector (voter). In a 2018 consent decree,
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.