# Arizona Voter ID law upheld by Ninth Cir **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302 "2012-04-19T18:07:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/1 "2012-04-19T18:07:20Z")
Comes now the federal judge team of Chief Judge Kozinski, Judge Ikuta, and Judge Berzon, and they say that Arizona’s requirement that voters present ID before voting is valid: > [@](#): > > Proposition 200 amended section 16-579 of the Arizona Revised Statutes to require that a voter “present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector” as a prerequisite to receiving a ballot. > . > . > . > Proposition 200’s polling place provision is not a poll tax under Harman. Requiring voters to show identification at the polls does not constitute a tax. . . Nor does the identification requirement place a material burden on a voter “solely because of his refusal to waive [his] constitutional immunity” to a poll tax, id.; rather, under Proposition 200, all voters are required to present identification at the polls. Because Arizona’s system does not, as a matter of law, qualify as a poll tax,we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Proposition 200’s polling place provision does not violate the Twenty-fourth Amendment. > . > . > . > Nor is Proposition 200’s polling place provision an unconstitutional poll tax under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. > . > . > . > **Requiring voters to provide documents proving their identity is not an invidious classification based on impermissible standards of wealth or affluence, even if some individuals have to pay to obtain the documents. On the contrary, such a requirement falls squarely within the state’s power to fix core voter qualifications.** > . > . > . > In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200’s polling place provision is related to the state’s legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. _Gonzalez v. Arizona_. And (obviously) emphasis added. This finding rejects arguments made in many different voter ID threads. Cites on request. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/2 "2012-04-19T18:11:30Z")
I can agree with this ruling. Asking for ID to register to vote seems like a no brainer as long as the state is willing to pay for it for people who can’t afford one. One can argue about the wisdom of such laws, but the constitutionality seems pretty obvious. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/3 "2012-04-19T18:20:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cites on request. Please? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/4 "2012-04-19T18:21:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can agree with this ruling. Asking for ID to register to vote seems like a no brainer as long as the state is willing to pay for it for people who can’t afford one. One can argue about the wisdom of such laws, but the constitutionality seems pretty obvious. Does the system in Arizona allow poor people to obtain an ID without paying for it? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/5 "2012-04-19T18:22:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _Gonzalez v. Arizona_. > > And (obviously) emphasis added. > > This finding rejects arguments made in many different voter ID threads. > > Cites on request. Many of the arguments I’ve seen here were really ridiculous and ultimately was used to address the problem a person in the back woods with no address, lost their birth certificate, with no internet access even through the library and couldn’t afford the $30 + 2 stamps for a birth cerificate and SS card. But when I used the argument that having to pay for ID was a “poll tax” and pointed out via reducto ad absurbum that requiring a person to drive (i.e. own a car) or pay for a bus ride was likewise a poll tax, I was an idiot who didn’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/6 "2012-04-19T18:26:44Z")
Sigh, do we have to go through the whole “disenfranchising tens of thousands of largely Democratic voters to prevent practically non-existant voter fraud is a bad thing for democracy?” again. It may be constitutional, but its still a bad idea. If you really want to fight voter fraud, outlaw absentee ballots. Admitedly this will likely most affect military and elderly voters who tend to vote GOP, but that’s their problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/7 "2012-04-19T18:28:07Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Please? Discussion of a similar law in Tennessee: > **[Requiring photo ID to vote](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603897)** > > So a Tennessee House of Representatives committee voted to approve a voter ID bill which would require TN voters to present photo ID at the polling place on election day. There are a few exemptions (people who living in nursing homes; people who have... Discussion of a law in South Carolina blocked by the Justice Department, not the courts: > **[SC voter ID law shot down](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=636010)** > > I’m posting this in the Elections forum, because it’s about voting. South Carolina’s new voter ID law was shut down by the Justice Department today; it seems that South Carolina has a past history of disenfranchising minorities. \[ ... A Pit of voting reform laws, including voter ID requirements: > **[I Pit GOP "voting reform"](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623017)** > > An article in Rolling Stone suggests that Republicans are already well along in efforts to steal another election: This isn’t “news” I guess, just same old - same old. But what will it take before Americans “go to the streets with pitchforks”? ... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/8 "2012-04-19T18:29:09Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Sigh, do we have to go through the whole “disenfranchising tens of thousands of largely Democratic voters to prevent practically non-existant voter fraud is a bad thing for democracy?” again. It may be constitutional, but its still a bad idea. This thread is to reinforce the claim that it is constitutional. I am not taking a position in this thread on whether it’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/9 "2012-04-19T18:33:19Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Does the system in Arizona allow poor people to obtain an ID without paying for it? [QUOTE=Arizona MVD] 5) How do I apply for an ID card? An identification (ID) card is available to all ages (including infants) for a fee of $12. For persons age 65 and over, or anyone receiving federal Supplemental Security Income disability payments, there is no fee. You may not possess an Arizona identification card and a valid driver license at the same time. Identification cards do not expire (unless issued in place of a suspended driver license). If issued in place of a suspended driver license, the card is valid for 180 days. You must visit an MVD office to complete an application and have a photo taken. Begin your application online. If you need to print one, see Driver License/Identification Card Application. You must bring in two forms of identification, at least one must contain a photo, or three forms of non-photo identification. See Identification Requirements for a listing of acceptable proof of identification. One proof must be listed under Primary. If you are age 18 or under and unable to sign for yourself, a parent or legal guardian may sign the credential and the legal guardian section on the application. [/QUOTE] If you cannot afford the $12 [QUOTE=Arizona Sec’y of State] List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required) •Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television •Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election •Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration •Indian census card •Property tax statement of the elector’s residence •Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification •Arizona vehicle insurance card •Recorder’s Certificate •Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder •Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material” [/QUOTE] I would say that 2 of a utility bill, voter registration card and mailing would be pretty easy to obtain, especially the last 2 if you registered to vote. What I would like to see is a discussion of the part struck down. [The court upheld the portion of Arizona’s voter ID bill that requires voters show identification at the polls but held that the National Voting Rights Act supersedes the law’s requirement that anyone registering to vote in a federal election show “satisfactory evidence” of US citizenship.](http://www.care2.com/causes/court-strikes-part-of-arizonas-voter-id-bill.html) [However, the 12-member panel struck down a provision requiring voters to show proof of citizenship.](http://www.therightscoop.com/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-upholds-arizona-voter-id-law-but/) [The court, however, found that the federal National Voter Registration Act trumps another section of the Arizona law that requires people to prove their citizenship in order to vote. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/17/appeals-court-upholds-arizona-voter-id-requirement/) So you don’t have to prove you’re a citizen to vote, merely say that you are. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/10 "2012-04-19T18:37:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is to reinforce the claim that it is constitutional. > > I am not taking a position in this thread on whether it’s a good idea. Why not? Pinning you down on that question has been like trying to impale a blob of mercury with a sewing needle. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/11 "2012-04-19T18:45:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Why not? Pinning you down on that question has been like trying to impale a blob of mercury with a sewing needle. Why do you care what my idea of a good idea is? I’m not a legislator. I have a fair amount of expertise in reading and interpreting laws, though, so I would think my opinion of the law’s constitutionality would be of interest. But why is my opinion of the law’s goodness valuable? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/12 "2012-04-19T18:49:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But why is my opinion of the law’s goodness valuable? Because if the law is taken and returned then if it weren’t good in the first place then its goodness is not impaired and no theft has occurred. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/13 "2012-04-19T18:49:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you care what my idea of a good idea is? I’m not a legislator. > > I have a fair amount of expertise in reading and interpreting laws, though, so I would think my opinion of the law’s constitutionality would be of interest. > > But why is my opinion of the law’s goodness valuable? Why is it so important that your opinion on this matter be masked if you are not acting in an official manner for either side? Opinions are not a weakness per se-in fact, having an opinion that swings one way and yet allowing that the law might swing the other can be seen as a strength. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/14 "2012-04-19T18:52:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why is it so important that your opinion on this matter be masked if you are not acting in an official manner for either side? Opinions are not a weakness per se-in fact, having an opinion that swings one way and yet allowing that the law might swing the other can be seen as a strength. I’ve not found it to be so. For example, despite feeling that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a horribly unwise and socially poor idea, I have always opined that it was constitutional, yet I don’t seem to draw any particular strength from that. People seem to assess the merits of my argument on the basis of whether I support their current position, period. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/15 "2012-04-19T18:59:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve not found it to be so. For example, despite feeling that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a horribly unwise and socially poor idea, I have always opined that it was constitutional, yet I don’t seem to draw any particular strength from that. > > People seem to assess the merits of my argument on the basis of whether I support their current position, period. I disagree. Saying that you disagreed with the ACA and yet allowing that it was constitutional puts you on a much higher level then those who gave an opinion on the constitutionality based solely on their personal likes and dislikes. It openly says that you are less likely to spin facts to suit your needs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/16 "2012-04-19T19:04:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I disagree. Saying that you disagreed with the ACA and yet allowing that it was constitutional puts you on a much higher level then those who gave an opinion on the constitutionality based solely on their personal likes and dislikes. It openly says that you are less likely to spin facts to suit your needs. So far as I can recall, this is the first time I have seen this sentiment expressed about my position on this or any issue by anyone here. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/17 "2012-04-19T19:06:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I can recall, this is the first time I have seen this sentiment expressed about my position on this or any issue by anyone here. Just my personal opinion. If I had any stats I’d show 'em. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/18 "2012-04-19T19:07:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just my personal opinion. If I had any stats I’d show 'em. 😃 Well, OK. Unfortunately, the formula does not work to my benefit here, since I believe these laws are a good idea, provided the IDs in question are free of charge. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/19 "2012-04-19T19:13:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, OK. Unfortunately, the formula does not work to my benefit here, since I believe these laws are a good idea, provided the IDs in question are free of charge. There’s nothing wrong with opinion lining up with fact, of course. In this matter I think I agree-there seems to be no real difficulty in acquiring the I.D., and it serves a very useful purpose. Baring some sort of convincing “slippery slope” problem, of course. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302/20 "2012-04-19T19:14:50Z")
Why is it a good idea? If a thing is not broken, why fix it? And, more importantly, why fix it in a way that blatantly favors the political advantage of one party over another? Have you any doubt about that, that such is the intent here? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-voter-id-law-upheld-by-ninth-cir/619302.md?page=2)