Photo finish in Arizona
Democrats have a shot at a Senate seat and several House races, but a new voter I.D. law could keep many of their supporters from voting.
By Art Levine
Read more: Arizona, Politics, Supreme Court, News, 2006 Elections
AP Photo/Matt York
A voter leaves a polling station Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006, in Chandler, Ariz., after casting her ballot in the Arizona primary.
Nov. 6, 2006 | On Tuesday, Democrats stand an outside chance of picking up several House seats and a Senate seat in the once beet-red state of Arizona. Democrat Harry Mitchell is in striking distance of Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the 5th House District, and challenger Jim Pederson has closed within single digits of incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Kyl. But the prospects for Pederson, Mitchell and Democrats in general would be much better had the U.S. Supreme Court not recently upheld the state's new voter I.D. law.
Republicans nationwide have been proposing and passing various laws that require would-be voters to produce photo identification on Election Day. The nominal intent of the laws is to discourage fraudulent voting. In the absence of any real evidence of such fraud, however, the more likely effect of the laws is to disenfranchise members of Democratic-skewing groups -- blacks, Latinos, the poor and college students. Arizona passed its tough photo I.D. law by direct voter referendum in November 2004.
While lower courts in other states have tossed out similar laws, the Supreme Court's decision was its first direct ruling on a photo I.D. law. The court upheld the law on procedural grounds, and pointedly did not rule on its merits, but the decision was still a boost to the largely Republican proponents of voter I.D. laws across the country. The decision takes on added importance since the House of Representatives split along party lines in late September to pass an immigrant-bashing "Election Integrity" bill that would bar would-be voters nationwide if they can't produce a passport or other proof of citizenship at the polls.
On the ground in Arizona on Tuesday, the voter I.D. law means election officials may now shoo away or discourage enough Democrats to make a difference in any of several close races. Maricopa County alone, which encompasses Phoenix and has a population close to 4 million, has more than 1,100 precincts. If only a dozen voters are rejected or leave in frustration in each precinct, it could mean a difference of more than 13,000 votes. Democrat Janet Napolitano won the governor's race in 2002 by less than 13,000 votes. And last week, a state court ruled that nonpartisan poll watchers would not be permitted into the polling places to count the number of people turned away. "If anyone is interested in using voter suppression to win an election," says Linda Brown, director of Arizona Advocacy Network, a voting rights group, "Arizona is the place to do it."
Arizona's I.D. law is one of the most restrictive in the country. In order to register to vote, Arizonans must produce a state driver's license or a state-issued photo I.D. More than half a million potential voters in the state do not have either. Would-be voters can only prove citizenship to receive one of the I.D.s and register to vote using a very narrow range of official documents.
At the polling place on Election Day, a voter must again produce a photo I.D. or other documentation with a current address in order to be permitted to vote. A voter who can't produce the proper I.D. is supposed to receive what the state calls "a conditional provisional ballot." But for that provisional ballot to count, the voter is required to return to the same polling place later that day or to a county's election offices within five business days with the correct I.D. In some of the state's sparsely settled and sprawling counties, voters would have to make a 200-mile round trip to visit an election office.
Arizona officials already have an idea of what to expect on Tuesday. The arguments over the law and its effects ceased being hypothetical on Sept. 12, when the state held a primary election. Observers agree that there were problems, especially with poll-worker training, but whether those problems were serious depends on whom you ask.
Joe Kanefield, election director for Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a Republican, thought Sept. 12 went smoothly. "The new I.D. law was a tremendous success. The vast majority of people had no problem with the new requirements. When you have 10,000-plus poll workers, you're going to have isolated human mistakes. It's a rush to judgment to say they weren't properly educated about procedures."
Yet at a briefing for county and municipal workers in Maricopa County in October, the county election department's federal compliance officer, Tammy Patrick, expressed concerns about the "awful" foul-ups during the primary, according to observer Linda Brown. Patrick denies using the word "awful," but she concedes, "The [election] board workers faced a lot of challenges in this election. They had to learn the basics in a two-hour training," especially difficult because first-timers replaced many of the 7,000 often elderly poll workers who quit before the primary because of the complex touch-screen computers and I.D. rules. "Did they all retain the information?" she asks rhetorically. "Absolutely not." Maricopa County disallowed 73 percent of its conditional ballots.
Individual voters provide plenty of anecdotal evidence of just how stringent the new law can be, and how poorly trained some poll workers are. Dr. Michael Lopez, a Tucson anesthesiologist, thought he had enough I.D.s to qualify to vote when he showed up at 6:45 a.m. at the polling place before rushing off to assist in an operation at a local hospital. He not only had a valid driver's license and his voter registration card, he even had his hospital photo I.D. draped around his neck. He still wasn't allowed to vote, however -- the address on his voter registration card matched the address in the voter registration book, but the address on his driver's license did not. "Do you doubt this is me?" he asked, staring at his name in the book, irritation mounting. "No, but the law requires verification of your address," a poll worker told him. Without the correct address on his driver's license, the law required him to produce two forms of non-photo I.D. with a current address before he could vote.
Next page: "I dont know a single student who has decided to get a state I.D."
