Advertisement

Parties Battle Over New Voter ID Laws

GOP-backed tighter rules are under court challenge. Democrats say they are unfair.

The Nation

September 12, 2006|Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer

The lawyer wrote that the state did not have to follow an opinion to the contrary written by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the panel created by the 2002 Help America Vote Act to guide the administration of federal elections.

The Republican National Committee lawyer, Sean Cairncross, wrote to Kevin Tyne, the top deputy to Arizona's Republican secretary of state, advising that the commission ruling was "simply wrong on the facts and the law."


Advertisement

"Good to talk to you," Cairncross wrote atop a list of bulleted arguments against the commission finding. "Here are a few thoughts -- please let me know however else I [can] help."

Tyne forwarded the e-mail to state Election Director Joe Kanefield, writing simply, "fyi."

Kanefield said in an interview that the e-mail came because the Republican National Committee had called offering advice, and that Arizona officials had not solicited it.

A party official said the advice was offered to "provide clarity" in an "unprecedented" situation.

In the Phoenix courtroom, opponents of the state law argued that thousands could be disenfranchised by the new identification rules. The state's lawyers said those estimates were inflated.

A lawyer for the state argued that the voting system was vulnerable to fraud by impersonators and noncitizens; lawyers fighting the new law said there was little to no evidence of past fraud.

One of the lawyers for groups challenging the law, David Rosenbaum, pointed out that the law required no identification from people casting absentee ballots by mail, and that whites were over three times more likely to vote that way than were minorities -- a clear case of discrimination, he said.

Silver on Monday refused to halt the law before today's Arizona primary, but she asked for more evidence regarding claims that the new registration requirements might violate voters' civil rights.

Lawyers on both sides expect that whatever she rules will be reviewed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is likely to have the final say on that case and others.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Poll pattern

Republican state lawmakers across the country have sought election-law changes they argue would reduce fraud. Democrats and their allies say the measures are designed to suppress the votes of traditional Democratic constituencies such as blacks, the poor and seniors. Here is a sampling:

Los Angeles Times Articles
|