Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A gift from ann finger

Posted 7 years ago on April 1, 2013, 7:48 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We can vote for the people behind voter suppression, or we can vote for electable candidates who will end the voter suppression.

Arizona Proposition 200 sent to SCOTUS

Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act," was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires: (a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; (b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and (c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.

Authors of the ballot measure, the "Protect Arizona Now" committee, wrote it because of a concern for lax voter registration and voting procedures and concerns that public services to immigrants from neighboring Mexico, many of whom are illegal immigrants, were too costly.

Opponents called it anti-immigrant, and considered it to be reminiscent of California's 1994 Proposition 187.


Two separate, rival groups supported Proposition 200. The first group was the proposition's sponsor, the Protect Arizona Now (PAN) committee, led by Kathy McKee and supported at the national level by the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (PEB). The second group was the Yes on 200 committee, led by Rusty Childress, a Phoenix-area car dealer, and supported at the national level by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). There was a split within PAN, which McKee described as an "attempted hijacking of a local effort by greedy, out-of-state interests"; this split highlighted an ongoing feud within the immigration reduction movement between FAIR and the other two groups dating back to at least 2003, with CCN and PEB issuing frequent statements accusing FAIR (as well as NumbersUSA) of being "reform lite" and "undermining real immigration reform. "
Yes On 200, which was funded almost entirely by out-of-state interests.

When FAIR began an independent signature gathering campaign to collect the remaining signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot, McKee accused FAIR of attempting a hostile takeover of PAN. When McKee named Abernethy, an avowed "ethnic separatist," as the chair of PAN's national advisory board, FAIR responded by issuing a press release calling for both McKee and Abernethy to resign from PAN and saying that Abernethy's views were "repugnant, divisive and do not represent the views of the vast majority of Arizonans who support Proposition 200." Abernethy's appointment drew harsh criticism from an anti-bigotry group based in Chicago, which noted her "leadership roles in other extremist organizations," such as the The Occidental Quarterly and the Council of Conservative Citizens.


On July 5, 2004, Protect Arizona NOW's Chairman, Kathy McKee, pursuant to Arizona law, submitted 190,887 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's office, surprising critics, who had believed organizers would not be able to garner enough signatures before the deadline. A counter-organization, the Statue of Liberty Coalition, was formed to block Proposition 200, claiming the initiative was racist and would violate Latino civil rights.[citation needed] Opposition to Proposition 200 was bipartisan, including Senator John McCain (R), Senator Jon Kyl (R), Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the Arizona Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the AFL-CIO. Tamar Jacoby, a writer on immigration-related issues in articles for The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.

Supporters partly relied for justification on a 2004 FAIR study that estimated that Arizona taxpayers were annually paying $1 billion to cover the education, uncompensated health care, and incarceration costs of illegal immigration, net of the taxes paid by the illegal immigrants. This study contradicts a 2003 study performed by a team at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and sponsored by Wells Fargo and the Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, which estimated that immigrants were annually contributing $318 million more in income and sales taxes than they were costing the state in services and uncompensated health care. However, it was not clear whether that estimate was based on all immigrants or only illegal immigrants.

In November 2004, the electorate passed Proposition 200

A substantial legal battle erupted over the precise definition of "public benefits." Arizona's Attorney General ruled that the law pertains to only discretionary state programs. Federally-funded entitlements like food stamps and subsidized school lunches are examples of public benefits to which, given the Attorney General's finding, the new law would not apply. PAN interpreted the proposition to apply the welfare portion of the initiative to the nearly 60 programs contained in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 46, "Welfare."

Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, at least one lawsuit related to Proposition 200 is still pending. "Yes on 200" filed a post-election lawsuit, initially dismissed in the lower court but currently on appeal, saying that the Attorney General overstepped his bounds when he narrowed the definition of "public benefits."

On December 23, 2004, the federal appeals court in Tucson, Arizona removed an earlier restraining order that had kept the state from implementing the law. The entire law, with one exception, is in effect, using the definition of "public benefits" promulgated by the Governor Brewer and Attorney General. State, county, and city workers may be fined up to $700 for each instance in which they provide such benefits to persons who cannot produce evidence of citizenship.

Voter registration and identification at the polls

Proposition 200 required, among other things, proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter identification at the polling place.
No major elections took place after its adoption before November 7, 2006, and the actual implementation of these two provisions of the proposition remained unclear. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of these requirements upon voters, arguing that such a law could be used to discriminate against ethnic groups, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

In October 2010, the Ninth Circuit held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid. However, in April 2011, the court granted Arizona's petition for en banc review of this ruling, and it heard oral arguments on June 21, 2011.

In April 2012, the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012.[15]

In July 2012, Arizona submitted to the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the state's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA. The Court granted the petition in October 2012, and it heard oral arguments on March 18, 2013.

In 2005 & 2007, AZ had 2,784,108 registered voters & 19 illegal registrations.
During that time, AZ refused to register 31,550 citizens who claimed US birth, but did not have the Prop 200 ID
Don't you wonder wht their ethnicity is & who they would vote for?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Republicans have decided they must make a "stand" in a southwestern state if they have any hope of winning presidential elections in the future.

So they are now in the midst of attempting to get hispanics to move out of the state and attract as many anti immigrant citizens to move to the state.

We will see how successful they are.

I think they will fail in the end.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

It always goes back and forth. Its how its set up. Always has been, and always will be. There have been cries of the death of each one for a century.

This system sucks.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Sure does. We'll need to make a great effort to change the system and break the grip of the corp owned duopoly.

You have any suggestions?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I have a ton of suggestions :)

The thing is, it cannot be done alone. It needs to reach critical mass. The only thing we can do is keep pushing, and try not to get too frustrated at the lack of response.

Someone told me the other day that we are expecting things to NOT do what they have historically done in every other instance. Countries grow, a few reach greatness. When they do, things get bloated, the state grasps for control, and then eventually it all falls apart. And then we get to start over.

I found that to be an interesting take on things.

That being said, cartoons like the one above are not what people want to see. They do not inspire. Its the same old nonsense, and Im not sure why this poster goes out of his/her way to post things like this on a regular basis. No one is going to see that and think "These guys are onto something!!" Very frustrating.

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 7 years ago

I agree. It's just the same old bullshit


[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I don't see the purpose of putting down "this posters" efforts. You did say all "we can do is keep pushing". He is always pushing. but I don't want to spend any energy defending him, he does that himself against many attackers.

I have also heard the "it all falls apart,....start over" theory. I suppose that may come. I don't prefer that since that means millions of poor and lower middle class people would DIE!!

So I support all non violent tactics to "keep pushing" for change.

I saw earlier your objection to on-line petitions and here against this posters efforts.

So you seem pretty clear about what you are against. Is there anything else you want to specify you are against? Please do.

I would then like to hear what specifically you believe we can do to "keep pushing".

I am very interested in your suggestions on what to do and less in your opinion of what you are against.

Thanks in advance.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Organize locally.

Congress has a 10% approval rating. People want something new. Give it to them.

Im not "against" any form of political action, even if I disagree with it. That doesnt mean, however that I dont look at certain things and think, and in some cases know firsthand, that time could be more efficiently used. Messaging is important, and this, just like A LOT of other stuff comes back to reform vs rebuild argument that hindered from day one.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

All non violent tactics! "reform vs rebuild" false choice. I assume the rebuild effort is well under way. I support that.

Reform is what we do in the meantime, the in between time.

But never, I repeat NEVER put fellow agitators down for their efforts.

We have the main streeters for that. WE must support each other.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Thats easy to say from a computer. A whole other animal when organizing, and there is that extremely precious resource that must be allocated: time.

Its not a false choice. Its a reality. Its what happened, and it was never truly dealt with because each side wants to go in a different direction.

Time. Prioritize. Efficiency. Organizing is very tough, and when you throw a wrench like that in there, it has a way of subverting things.

That being said, yes, support all efforts. But its different when you are asking the group, as a whole, to make decisions. Volunteers are scarce, any organizer knows this, its not like you have hundreds of guaranteed boots to hit the ground for multiple actions a day- there was for a second, but even then the ideological differences were tough to overcome in planning and presenting...

You can repeat all you want, but the bottom line is its tough work, its not as easy as you say, because if it was things would be different.

That being said, the cartoon is still lame.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I never said anything was easy. Not sure why you would make that up except so you can say I was wrong.

There is no need to fight over reform vs rebuild. Those who want to rebuild will do that. Same with reform.

We gotta allow all to put their efforts where they want to.

We have many, many efforts going on. I'm not talkin only about occupy (who has too many volunteers for occupy Sandy for instance.) But many groups organizing (environmental, anti war, etc) and fighting for real change.

And the cartoon was hilarious, More power to him.

Do you support rebuilding?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

The discussion is on OWS. The infighting over it was real. You can rewrite history all you want, but when a group of people are making decisions on where they want the group to go, and there are two very different routes, it's impossible. Hence where it is now.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Where occupy is now is a resounding success!


I can't tell you exactly how the fight (between reform, rebuild) went or even it is over entirely. But I would suggest that people STOP fighting over what everyone should do.

There are enough of us, and enough organizations addressing every conceivable effort that no one should feel unloved.

I can speak to many growing potent efforts to reform, (occupy, and non occupy) but I can't really speak to a status on the rebuild effort.

Do you know who the rebuild effort is going? Do you support rebuilding?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Im not how you consider Wall St reaching records highs, as a resounding success for OCCUPY WALL STREET. But, the police attacking and Dems and Reps deciding it needs to be shut down will do that, I guess.

Again, we are speaking about occupy, not other groups. And the PROCESS was the rebuild. Im sorry you still dont understand what was going on over a year ago.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I never said that the Wall st index record highs represents the resounding success of OWS.

That's you making things up to knock down (strawman much?). P.lease refrain

Do you know how the rebuild effort is going? Do you support rebuilding?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

You said it was is a resounding success. I said Wall St is at record levels and governments all over decided to not occupy continue. Thats not a resounding success in my book. Is it in yours?

What could have been, had Dems and Reps not decided to crack it all down, could have been something truly awesome. Of course, everyone knew that the status quo wasnt interested in real self governance, so it should have been expected.

The rebuild effort and occupy are one in the same. Try not to confuse this site and weekend rallies with what the actual discussions at the GAs and late nights were.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Crackdown was expected. Our success is not measured by the indexes, nor is failure indicated by the crackdowns.

Our continued, growing efforts in spite of the most powerful force in human history against us is the measure of our success.

We are barely a year and a half old. We are well on our way to change the world.

Your measures are not applicable, defeatist, and pessimistic.

I'm not confused about what occupy is. It most certainly is not ONE thing. If it is still discussing rebuilding then more power. I'd love to hear a status on the rebuild effort.

The real robust activism also came from GA's and late night discussion.

And countless occupy groups are fighting for change as a result.

Strikedebt, Sandy, environmental, stopping foreclosures, supporting labor, immigration, police stop n frisk/racial profiling.

Your continued derision of the activist choices occupiers have made shows your goal is division, negativism, insults, and not encouraging occupy action.

I'm not confused about you.

Maybe you support the rebuild effort. You've refused to answer 3 times now. You don't push the rebuild effort. You also refuse to give a status of the rebuild.

Are you confused about what occupy is about.? Be clear about this: You do not speak for occupy! You don't even know what is goin on in Occupy Tampa whose initials you've coopted.

Do I need to give you an update about occupy Tampa again.?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

The process was the movement.

You need to hear the "status" of things because thats all you do is sit on here and spew nonsense all day.

Have a nice day troll.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Your talkin to yourself, nabob.

You don't have a status of the rebuild effort because you have no interest in it. Your interest is only in putting down, and thereby hopefully shutting down any and all occupy actions.

"the process was the movement"? please you don't have a clue what this movement is.

It is many things, and it is many things that haven't evolved yet. It is growing, it is unstoppale, it is all inclusive, it is rebuilding the govt from the ground up, and it is fighting for change until that change comes.

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 7 years ago

Call some elected officials in Arizona. Be sure to tell them you live in Arizona. If they hassle you, bring up the Nazis.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Have you found that to be an effective tactic?

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 7 years ago

Me? I ain't calling a Congressman and lying about where I'm from. I have standards.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I'm sure your parents are very proud.


[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 7 years ago

If your knowledge of knowing what Occupy was about equaled that of your mastery of computer graphics, you'd be all set