Justice Department sues Arizona over new election law requiring proof of citizenship

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Tue Jul 5, 2022, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

CNN)The Justice Department sued the state of Arizona Tuesday to block a law that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in the state. he law, which Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed in March, is set to take effect in January. According to the lawsuit, the Supreme Court rejected Arizona's previous attempt to require proof of citizenship in 2013, and the Justice Department argues this new law violates the National Voter Registration Act because it requires documented proof of citizenship in federal elections.

"Arizona has passed a law that turns the clock back on progress by imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements that would block eligible voters from the registration rolls for certain federal elections," said Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, in a statement. "The Justice Department will continue to use every available tool to protect all Americans' right to vote and to ensure that their voices are heard," she added.

Arizona is just one of the key battleground states where Republican state lawmakers have pushed for changes to voting procedures, something that's alarmed voting rights advocates. Democrats have repeatedly warned that laws like the one in Arizona could raise unwarranted questions about the results of free and fair elections and erode voter confidence.
State law already requires Arizona residents who want to register to vote in state elections to provide proof of citizenship. But this legislation, passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature, extends those requirements to residents who are only voting in federal elections.

Currently, individuals who use a federal voter registration form are required to attest under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, but proof is not required. nder the new law, elections officials would need to verify the citizenship status of any voter who submits a federal voter registration form without the proper proof. And any county recorder or election official who doesn't attempt to verify citizenship status and knowingly registers a voter without the proper documentation could be charged with a felony. he state attorney general could also investigate any voter without proof of citizenship and could prosecute non-citizens who register to vote.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/arizona-election-law-justice-department/index.html

---

Original article -

(CNN)The Justice Department sued the state of Arizona Tuesday to block a law that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in the state.

The law, which Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed in March, is set to take effect in January.

According to the lawsuit, the Supreme Court rejected Arizona's previous attempt to require proof of citizenship in 2013, and the Justice Department argues this new law violates the National Voter Registration Act because it requires documented proof of citizenship in federal elections.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

[MiniMe]

1. Surprised that it doesn't take effect until January instead of November

But glad the Justice Dept is trying to block it. With this SC, they will probably let it go through. Grrrr.

[AllaN01Bear]

2. will they ever read the constitution and the bill of rights and their supporitng documents? nope.

[csziggy]

11. They use it the same way they use the Bible - pick and chose what they want

Second Amendment - Great! Amendments that give more rights than were in the original, flawed document - doesn't count.

Pretty much anything else they don't want to follow, ignore.

[AllaN01Bear]

13. my late mom would say they hide behind the constitution, the flag, the bible , and when cornered com

e out swinging.

[csziggy]

16. You mother was right! nt

[ashredux]

3. Just plain old voter intimidation. Who has a birth certificate in them drawer

Just plain old voter intimidation. Many folks don’t have a birth certificate in their drawer

There is no evidence a lot of non-citizens or voting. This is just a way to suppress the vote

[sakabatou]

4. Getting such documentation could count as a poll tax.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. That's what happened when they tried to pass "Voter ID" here in PA

back in 2012. There was a cost for a copy of an original birth certificate that would have been a requirement to get the ID, so that right there justified a stay that went into effect for that upcoming 2012 election, even after the legislature continually modified the requirements along the way to make the ID "free" and on and on. But 2 years later, the law was finally struck down.

The main purpose of course was this infamous admission from this douchebag -

[msfiddlestix]

24. California Real ID required Court Sealed Documents from Birth Certificates, Marriage Divorce and

Court Approved name changes.

It all cost me quite a sum of money at the end. $25 for each document requested, which for me included Birth, Marriages and Divorces.. Court approved would have cost me over $400, but I was able to obtain a fee waiver due to hardship.

Process of obtaining my Real ID/DL occurred in Sept of 2019, by the time a managed to obtain all of the douments and just ready to obtain court approval, covid shutdown occurred in the Spring of 2020. That shut down all of the courts, Virtual Court hearings began and my court date was delayed until June which I didn't have to appear. Lots of money for my wallet. and time.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. I got my PA RealID in 2019 as well (April for me)

and had an extra copy of my certified (raised seal) birth certificate from when I renewed my passport a couple years before - I think that was $9 a copy + shipping (I had just missed the time frame for a simple renewal of the passport so did a full re-up and went on and got a passport card along with that - and the passport was well over $100 plus another $35 for the passport card at the time plus having the postal designee verify and certify docs and mail the application, which was ~$30). So I also brought the passport as well for documentation.

My concern was with my original SS card which was signed when I was 12 years old (got that back in the early '70s after my dad died since he was a vet and worked for the feds so we got a survivor's annuity and some vet benefits, but also had to file annual federal tax returns and that required a SS card for kids too - now all children are supposed to have one).

The guy processing my application just laughed when I warned him about the SS card but I was good with all the documentation that I provided including that, but wanted to get it out of the way because after all the years of delays of implementing (that continue to happen here in PA) I figured it was only a matter of time! As it is, the RealID 1-time fee was around $31 on top of what would normally be the driver's license fee of $30 (although because I had recently renewed by driver's license, I wasn't charged again for the new one IIRC).

[msfiddlestix]

26. Interesting..

About a hundred years ago... I created a problem for myself sometime in my mid-twenties when I changed my first name, kept my middle name, and retained my married last name.

I was operating under the understanding that it wasn't a problem and that it was considered "legal" so long as everything requiring your signature was consistent, no need to go to court.

And as it happens, Social Security didn't require court approval when I requested a new card with the name change. nor did I ever have problem with the first time I renewed my California DL's... until the California Real ID came into effect.

However, I did have a problem with obtaining a passport. Now that I've gone through that ardous process with the Real ID, I'm going to reapply for a passport and I expect no problems since I had to officially establish through court the identity I've used for the past several decades.

LOL. this conversation reminds me to get that taken care of..

[BumRushDaShow]

27. I know way way back

when I first got my driver's license, the application wanted the "full middle name" which I included, but then that is how the name appears on the DL as "official" although I normally just use/used the middle initial on most everything else (including when signing stuff). So it's always been a concern about how nitpicky someone got about that vs a signature. My passport ended up the same - including the full middle name.

And yeah, even though the passports last a good amount of time, that expiration date does still sneak up on you the way time flies!

I think they give you at least a 6 month "grace period" to not have to go through their long form to reapply (the short form would just be a renewal and you send in your old one and get it back with a hole punched through it along with the new one).

[msfiddlestix]

34. Thanks! this helps. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

6. Especially for women with one or more marriages. Or a divorce.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. I wonder if my passport would be sufficient proof of citizenship.

[Igel]

14. Is in TX.

If you need to show citizenship for a document, then that document counts as proof of citizenship.

It's why there are some strange things on the TX list--CWPs, I think, count.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. Actually, not changing your name when you marry is a Good Thing.

Okay, I understand that it's common and that women still do it, although why, I don't get.

Anyway, this is the story I want to tell. Many years ago, when I was an airline employee, a ticket agent at National Airport in Washington DC, one of our flight attendants came to the counter with a pass request. It was made out to Mr and Mrs Ronald Smith (these names are made up) and her ID was in the name of Samantha Jones. I pointed out to her that I could make no connection whatsoever to Samantha Jones and Mrs Ronald Smith. She protested, saying she'd be marrying Ronald in a month or so. I then repeated that there was no connection between those two people and still refused to write the pass.

Honestly, I don't get why women still change their names. I got married in 1980, never changed my name. Once, and only once in 25 years of marriage was it a problem. My husband and I had gone out to dinner, and he'd left his credit card at the restaurant. When he realized that he called them, yes the credit card was there, and he said he'd send his wife to pick it up. When I got there, they understandably wanted to see ID. My ID was for "Poindexter Oglethorpe" and his was for "Quentin Quackenbush." I wasn't going to push real hard, because I appreciated that they wanted to make absolutely certain that I was the right person to pick up the credit card. I remembered that I had my checkbook with me. It had both of our names on it, as well as our home address that was also on my driver's license. They gave me the credit card.

I understand that in recent years changing name upon marriage is complicated and difficult, which is too bad. It shouldn't be. Keeping your original name also should be accepted and easy.

[csziggy]

12. I agree with you - women shouldn't change their names

I didn't when I got married in 1977. Aside from an initial hiccup, it has been great.

The hiccup - we were using an out of town accountant firm to do our taxes. Since I had the higher income and considered myself head of household, I listed my name first on the documents they had us fill out. Some moron at the accountants switched our names when they filled out the IRS forms, but didn't switch our SS numbers. We missed it when we reviewed the forms. Of course the IRS was not happy and sent back our returns. We corrected them and re-submitted. All good, right?

Well, not really. That firm also tacked my husband's surname onto mine name - CS Ziggy Notziggy - but I shut that down immediately. Problem solved?

No. Meanwhile the Social Security Administration somehow got hold of the issue and contacted me, wanting to know why I had not notified them of my name change. That took longer than the IRS problem to solve. They didn't believe I had not taken my husband's name, but I persisted.

The last part of the hiccup was that the IRS seemed to hold a grudge. They audited us four years in a row. Never found more than small math mistakes, once or twice in our favor. They finally gave up.

For years I have had fun with companies whose employees are calling for my husband and when I answer, say "Mrs. Notziggy..." I am adamant that there is no Mrs. Notziggy here - there was one living in a different city (my MIL) but she died. I take no prisoners on this issue and have no sympathy for their confusion. They should not make assumptions like that!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. I married in 1980, just three years after you did.

Lucky me, I never had the issues you did with any agency. My in-laws would gift me with a one hundred dollar check for my birthday, and always made it out to "Poindexter Quackenbush". As noted, we had a joint checking account. I simply signed as "Poindexder Oglethorpe Quackenbus" and there was never a problem.

[csziggy]

17. The check thing only happened with wedding presents

Before I made it clear to relatives I did not use his last name. But recently one of our nephews got married and the invitation was made out to "Mr. & Mrs. Notziggy." I didn't go to that wedding, not just for that reason but that was part of it. The other part is that the wedding was in Matt Gatz's district and I suspect that the bride's family was the type to support him. I know that nephew's father is that type.

Other nephews and nieces that got married (and had weddings) did address my invitation correctly so I did go to their weddings. (Quite a few have not had big weddings, with only a couple of witnesses attending, no invitations.)

[LiberalFighter]

18. As a genealogist knowing how names of spouse can create problems

And having an interest in voter registration as well as involved in the assignment of poll workers I understand those and other issues.

[csziggy]

20. Yes, I do a lot of genealogy, too, and dislike how changing the surname eliminates female identity

I've also run into problems where women are assigned a "maiden" name which turns out to be wrong. On my trees, the only time I use the husband's surname for a woman is when the maiden name is unknown.

[LiberalFighter]

21. I do too but I use the following format Surname__

The two underlines helps keep the person within the index and highlights more work needed.

[csziggy]

22. Oh, that is a great idea!

I'll start doing that from now on. Usually though when I see a woman with her husband's name, I know it was not her maiden name.

Though my great grandfather's grandparents did have the same surname when they married. They didn't know it but they were like fifth cousins. In order to avoid confusion with the in laws, he changed the spelling of his family's surname, from Hewitt to Hughitt. It ook three generations and a change of state for the new spelling to stick, though.

[LiberalFighter]

23. I have a few distant cousin marriages too. Name changes just involved progression

in the old country from one version to another.

[csziggy]

28. I've got those, too, plus spelling changes because of illeteracy

One man's name was spelled four different ways in one deed, with his signature spelled a fifth way. Yes, he was literate enough to sign his name, not sure if he was literate in English, though. His family was of German descent and even a few generations after they moved to South Carolina, they still spoke German. They lived in a German enclave in that state, so probably retained much of their mother tongue for generations.

[LiberalFighter]

29. Quite a few German communities in Wisconsin during 1800s and later.

Both sides and branches all German. It appears I lucked out in tracing the origin in Germany for my lines. Church records were the key. It also helps more data is available than forty years ago.

Many lines I had not pieced together from a couple of villages in a book I found. And many also immigrating to the USA before and after my line. Settling in different parts of the country.

Some states are easier to research than others too. If records or newspapers are available. I use information from obituaries to help track where family members are at different time periods. And helps confirm they are the person. Along with narrowing time period others were alive.

[csziggy]

30. Oh, yes, there are so many more original sources now than decades ago

In the 1960s I helped my mother trace her lines. She had to go to the courthouses to get access to deeds and wills. Fortunately, her family all lived in a small area of central Alabama from 1819 on and her parents still lived there. We spent many summer vacations wandering through graveyards, taking pictures of tombstones. I taught myself to type on an antique typewriter so I could transcribe those old deeds and wills.

When my oldest sister went to graduate school in North Carolina in the late 1960s, she managed to visit courthouses there and in South Carolina (the ones that Sherman had not burned) and find records.

But it wasn't until the last ten years or so I was able to trace some of the families from SC to Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, or the German families back to where they came from (Baden Wurttemberg spelling is certainly off)and find original baptism records. Or the scanned copies of the original deeds from William Penn to some of the Quaker families. I even found the affidavit from the son of an ancestor who swore he was on the dock the day that William Penn first arrived in his colony! And the scanned copy of the indenture as an apprentice for the ancestor who arrived in New Jersey before 1700.

South Carolina is great for finding online records. Pennsylvania is good, but not as cohesive - or at least wasn't the last time I looked. I've slowed down a lot on looking up the early records since I have run out of sources for many of my lines. I guess it's time to go back and see what has been added.

[LiberalFighter]

31. I had been dealing with two different time periods for Wisconsin marriage records for a long time.

A couple of months ago Ancestry added everything (almost) from 1820 to 2004 (actually about 2015). It includes more information such as middle name and for early records the images. Before this, I was relying on newspapers or other family trees.

Only a few instances of anyone being in the US very early for me. A few bad apples. One that was "married" to David Koresh and an offshoot that is currently in Congress. Troy Nehls. That Nehls family has a bad history in Wisconsin and Texas. Might had been why he and some in the family moved to Texas.

[csziggy]

33. Thanks for the tip about Wisconsin records!

My husband's family was in Trimble County, Wisconsin early along. Maybe I can find more information about them with the newly available records.

Most of my ancestors arrived early along - some on the Mayflower, some shortly after, some in New Amsterdam - got an ancestor who was the first female child born in Fort Orange, now Auburn, New York - lots before 1700. My most recent immigrant ancestor was my great grandfather who immigrated from Wales in 1872.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Another suggestion regarding birthplaces in the USA.

If you don't have access and no other resources consider using the Census residence closest to birth as the birthplace for Censuses before 1940. If birth is closer to Census before birth look for that Census of parent or parents. I try to compare Censuses also to see if they were more permanent or temporary. If temporary then best to record the Census data and Residence in the facts either way as a means to track it.

In many cases I will consider the Census residence as the birthplace over what might be in an obit or other document years after the fact. Unless it is the birth or church record. Some that were born in rural areas will use the nearby village or city as their birthplace.

[Jennike]

9. Not everyone has those documents available

Arizona wants to depress Hispanic turnout.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Exactly. And in some cases it requires more than one document.

[ChazInAz]

10. It would be nice

If candidates for office in Arizona could prove that they actually live there, and are members of the party they claim to belong to.