Navajos, protected under the Voting Rights Act, are less likely to
have the forms of identification that can be used as identification at
the polls than other citizens of Arizona due to historical,
socio-economic and other factors, according to the Navajo Nation
Council's Speaker's Office.
In addition, Navajos have less opportunity than other citizens to
participate in elections through the early ballot process because many
Navajos require official translation assistance in order to complete
election ballots and because of the problems with the mail service in
obtaining and requesting an early ballot, the speaker's office said.
.
Indian Country Today
Arizona Indians denied voter ID injunction
September 15, 2006
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413649
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
PHOENIX - A federal judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction
sought by the Navajo Nation and other plaintiffs to halt implementation
of Proposition 200, which requires identification to vote in state and
federal elections in Arizona.
As Arizona voters went to the polls to vote in the primary on Sept. 12,
the Navajo Nation announced that U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver
denied motions for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of
the new law. Silver heard two days of testimony, Aug. 30 - 31, from
plaintiffs including the Navajo Nation.
Navajo Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan said Navajos remain at a
disadvantage in voting and the lawsuit raises vital questions regarding
voting rights and civil rights.
''The Navajo Nation is often in a unique situation because of the
remoteness of our communities and lack of access to many services. To
impose this requirement on our people may have an effect on whether or
not the votes of the Navajo people are counted,'' Morgan said.
The Navajo Nation filed suit against the state of Arizona earlier this
year regarding Proposition 200, passed in 2004. Although the Navajo
Nation sought a separate hearing, its claims were consolidated with
other plaintiffs filing suit against the state.
In May, a coalition of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, including the Inter
Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., Hopi Tribe, League of Women Voters of
Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, the Arizona Advocacy
Network Foundation, People For the American Way Foundation and state
Rep. Steve Gallardo. The coalition is represented by a diverse legal
team including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, the American
Association of Retired Persons Foundation and others.
Raphael Bear, president of ITCA, an organization of 20 Arizona Indian
tribes, pointed out that the struggle for Indian voting rights in
Arizona was fought and won in court by two members of the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation: Frank Harrison and Harry Austin.
''The journey for Native Americans in Arizona to the voting booth has
been too long and particularly painful. Not until 1948, led by members
of my nation, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, did the Arizona Supreme
Court recognize that Indians had the right to vote in this state,'' Bear
said.
''Proposition 200 destroyed much of our success. Today, ITCA has asked
the federal court to remove the new burdens of Proposition 200, which
fall disproportionately on the members of our tribes.''
In the lawsuit, the Navajo Nation claims that the new laws are
discriminatory and unduly burden Navajo electors' right to vote.
Navajos, protected under the Voting Rights Act, are less likely to have
the forms of identification that can be used as identification at the
polls than other citizens of Arizona due to historical, socio-economic
and other factors, according to the Navajo Nation Council's Speaker's
Office.
In addition, Navajos have less opportunity than other citizens to
participate in elections through the early ballot process because many
Navajos require official translation assistance in order to complete
election ballots and because of the problems with the mail service in
obtaining and requesting an early ballot, the speaker's office said.
Under the new law, Arizona voters were required to present
identification in order to vote at the polls in the primary election. A
valid government-issued identification with photo is acceptable. Voters
lacking photo identification may provide two forms of non-photo
identification, including an Indian census card, tribal enrollment card,
utility bills or bank statement up to 90 days old, Arizona vehicle
registration or other specified documents.
The new law requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, and
opponents say it unfairly targets migrants.
Although the motions for a preliminary injunction were denied, parties
have been ordered to submit briefs on whether the voter identification
requirements for voter registration constitute a poll tax.
Silver also ordered the Navajo Nation to submit additional briefing on
its VRA and Civil Rights Act claims by Sept. 25. CRA laws, including the
VRA, were implemented to protect the voting rights of minority citizens.
Morgan said because most Navajos vote at the polls on election day,
Navajos are subjected to more burdensome requirements for voting than
those individuals voting at precincts off the reservation.
A hearing on the Navajo Nation's VRA and CRA claims is scheduled to be
held Oct. 19.
Morgan said, ''It certainly was a disappointment that our motion for a
preliminary injunction was denied, but we now have the opportunity to
present our Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act claims separately.''
Silver's order stated that the court was reluctant to grant a motion for
preliminary injunction once voting has begun. Early voting in the
primary elections began Aug. 10.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Janice Brewer, named in the plaintiffs'
lawsuit, said the law was a protection against voter fraud.
''Today's court ruling assures the integrity of this process by
retaining the requirements established by Proposition 200,'' Brewer said
in a written statement after Silver's decision.
However, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington
said Proposition 200, known also as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen
Protection Act, is a violation of rights and impractical.
Barbara Arnwine, executive director, said, ''Proposition 200 will
severely restrict the ability of countless citizens to participate in
the political process.
''The law is impractical in that it forces voter registration groups to
obtain proof of citizenship in order to register a new voter. These
groups cannot be expected to carry a photocopy machine around when
registering new voters door-to-door,'' Arnwine said.
Attorneys vowed to continue the battle over Prop 200. Within hours of
Silver's ruling, lawyers for some of the challengers filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
--30--
