Arizona's Voter Suppression Law: Referendum to Overturn HB 2305 Filed

Arizona Republicans remind me of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike, in this case, trying to keep the flood of Latino voters at bay.

Thankfully, the electorate is going to get a chance in 2014 to chop that finger clean off. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Monday, a coalition of groups billing itself as the Protect Your Right to Vote Committee filed notice with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office, seeking a referendum for the 2014 ballot to overturn Arizona's Voter Suppression Law, House Bill 2305.

Signed by Governor Jan Brewer, after, according to state Senator Steve Gallardo, she reneged on her promise to Dems to veto it, HB 2305 creates several barriers for electoral participation in an effort to maintain the GOP's hegemony over Arizona, even as the state's political sands shift.

See Also:
Supreme Court: Voting Rights Act Can't Make Arizona Get Feds' Approval on Voting Laws
Black and Latino Leaders in Phoenix Call on Congress to Restore Voting Rights Act

Impediments include requiring that all candidates get the same number of signatures to have their names placed on legislative, Congressional and statewide ballots. Members of minority parties would have a higher threshold, as a result.

HB 2305 makes it easier for elections officials to remove voters' names from the permanent early voter list, and criminalizes the simple act of picking up someone's early ballot and taking it to the polls, a tactic that was crucial for victory in the recall of disgraced two-time loser, ex-state Senate President Russell Pearce.

Also, the measure creates unnecessary hurdles for those circulating initiative, referendum and recall petitions.

The law has managed to tick off Democrats, African-Americans, Latinos, Libertarians, progressives, Greens, and just about everyone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.

As a result, it should be relatively easy to score the 86,405 valid signatures from qualified state electors needed by September 12, 2013.

I mean, this isn't the attempted recall of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which needed 335,317 valid signatures from qualified county electors.

Rather, signature-gatherers in this effort have the entire pool of potential state voters to draw from.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
bunchesoffluff
bunchesoffluff

reportedly hispanics, blacks(because blacks are more likely to be poor), and the poor more likely vote democrat, because some republicans are pro-kill the poor and immigrants, pro-close the boarder, and anti-welfare. some democrats are more tolerant of immigrants and give some welfare. some republicans think if they close the boarders, kill and arrest poor and immigrants, and supress poor and immigrant voters by putting in voter id and discriminatory qualifications, then there wont be poor or immigrants to vote democrat.put in a new consitutional amendement that says: everyone in the country must be allowed to vote, includeing prisoners and babys. no voteing restrictions allowed. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. article XIVvoter id law, and similar voter suppression tactics, abridge the privileges of citizens of the united states by disallowing many of them, especially the poor, to vote, because many of them are unable to or cant afford to get a voter id. plus it abridges the privilege of citizens of the united states to not have to pay and jump thru hoops in order to vote. voter id law is unconstitutional. tell voter supressors to stop the much bigger problem: politican fraud, instead of supressing voters.

gpscentral
gpscentral

I never hear anyone mention that is was ALL of the Arizona county recorders, most of whom are democrats, that asked for a remedy to the nightmare of counting ballots in the last election. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to pick up your ballot. Instead of making the latino community sound like helpless children that require ballot pick up, we should be educating voters on the ease of using PEVL and what to do if you don't mail your ballot it time. Instead, we have local organizations like Citizens for a Better Arizona and the Arizona Democratic Party picking up ballots by the thousands and NOT educating voters on the ease of using our voting system. Purging PEVL is necessary from time to time and they don't just do it arbitrarily. If you are purged from the list AFTER getting a notice, it's still easy to get back on.

As far as the third parties needing to get more signatures to get on the ballot, I have no problem with that either. If they expect to win, they'd have to garner a whole lot more in votes than signatures required. It seems like a reasonable expectation. Frankly, until Independent candidates get equal ground in the signature requirement dept I don't think this is even as issue at all. Independents are the 2nd largest voting bloc in Arizona yet they've had to get 4 or 5 times the required signatures the GOP and Dems do, just to get on the ballot. Let's address that while we're at it.

This isn't a Voter Suppression law, it's a Voter Responsibility law. If you are going to be a voter you should at least know the simple requirements it takes to do so.

Lou Lernor
Lou Lernor

Julie Erfle now heads a group intent on getting a referendum on the next ballot to repeal HB 2305. HB 2305 has been repeatedly called an effort to suppress voters, but . . . I cannot see how this new law actually suppresses voters. Honest, I cannot. 1. There is nothing wrong with clearing the Permanent Early Voting List and it is easy enough to get put back on the list. A voter has a responsibility to know how and where to vote. 2. There is nothing wrong with establishing the same standard for all candidates to gather the SAME NUMBER OF SIGNATURES. 3. There is everything right with preventing groups from collecting ballots, as Parraz's CBA has done so to primarily parade them as a show of power. As a result of such collecting, the Recorder's Office got clogged. 4. If a voter receives a ballot through the mail, there is nothing wrong with expecting that voter to be able to use the mail to return a ballot. No, it is not HB 2305 that will have an adverse effect on the voter. But the recent SCOTUS ruling most likely will do so by removing the pre-clearance check on redistricting and allow for the passage of a law requiring photo IDs to vote. I reject the idea that HB 2305 is unnecessarily restrictive on a voter, a candidate, or any group attempting to benefit during an election. I have also repeatedly asked how HB 2305 is "an attack on the Latino Community", as what has been put forth by Arizona State Representative Martin Quezada and other democrats . . . and no one can really explain such a bold statement. So now there will be plenty of propaganda written in the media against HB 2305 in the effort to get a referendum on the next ballot. Be skeptical.

Cris Cross
Cris Cross

Republicans are going to destroy the world.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

While I hope that this is succesful, they better have ttheir funding already lined up because the Arpaio recal effort proves how important cash is to the process.

bobunf
bobunf

Contact them at: Protect Your Right to Vote Committee, 480-382-1102

Cozz
Cozz

Republicans make it embarrassing to live in Arizona.

leonardclark
leonardclark

Thank you Mrs. Erfle and all participants in this endeavor to restore the principles of the United States constitution to the old and tired bigoted voter suppression of "cheating" republican politicians who can't win elections unless they steal votes from the people !

These political "fraidy cat" extremist republicans who can't win elections unless they steal votes will hopefully continue on their long miserable trek to the dust bin of history like the rest of their extremist republican party nation wide !

P.S.

Extremist republicans...if you want to be like the Taliban in Afghanistan...then move the hell there and stop trying to destroy our democratic republic !

Leonard Clark

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

I don't understand. Under this law, a Libertarian running in his party's primary will require more signatures than there are Libertarians to get on the Libertarian primary ballot. How is that "Responsible "?

wherewasi
wherewasi topcommenter

@Lou Show Why should we "be skeptical" when it is clear that this is a Tea Party power grab?  I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't really make sense.  Why should we settle for fewer candidates because of party size?  I would take ANY party over the Tea Baggers.  I should have a choice.  Sorry, I get your idea, but reject the result.

theloushow
theloushow

Do you suppose then, Johnny, that all a Libertarian would need to win an election would just be the votes of the Libertarians?

wherewasi
wherewasi topcommenter

@theloushow Additionally, I think it is time to put very tight restrictions on campaign contributions.  I think it is time that we require that 95% of the money spent to elect people comes from within their region.  I.E. - Governor needs 95% of the funds to come from within Arizona.  Shurf Joe needs 95% of his campaign contributions to come from WITHIN Maricopa County.  Phoenix Mayor needs to have 95% come from within the city of Phoenix. Etc, ... How much would our political scene CHANGE if the funding came from constituents?  I would guess . . . A LOT!

Chuck Coughlin and the Private Prison System would be screwed if he could not buy Governor Glug Glug Jan Brewer.  Coughlin and his private prison system should be banned from contributing.  Is that NOT a CONFLICT OF INTEREST???

It's a shame that people of Arizona don't care.

wherewasi
wherewasi topcommenter

@theloushow  I guess I understand your point there, but it still seems to me that a percent of your party's registered voters is more fair.  My problem with the whole thing is that it is about the Republican - no, I mean the Tea - Party remaining in control.  So, instead of RAISING the bar to inhibit smaller parties from participating, how about if we LOWER the bar.  If, for example, Montgomery needs to have a certain number of signatures to get on the next ballot, does it matter whether it is 3,000 or 30,000?  No, not really.  But for Kielsky, it does matter.  So, let's not expect the GOP to get thousands upon thousands of signatures.  It would probably happen anyways because of all of the out of state money that gets funneled to them.  

I voted for Kielsky and I will continue to vote for anyone who will represent something other than our current power play of "morally superior" psychos who screech and claw and wag their fingers in the face of others.

It needs to be easier to find alternatives, not harder.  This was a last minute dash by the extreme right to protect themselves, knowing full well that they are losing power, drop by drop, with every controversial issue they decide to toss into the mix.

I will sign this ref and I would also be willing to carry a petition and solicit signatures.  The bullying from the Wrong Right needs to end!

theloushow
theloushow

I well remember the Kielsky campaign, he gave me a great interview.  And I believe a Libertarian could have served that position well, as a County Attorney.
But you are missing the point:  There is nothing wrong with expecting every candidate to get the same amount of signatures to get on the ballot, regardless of how many members in a third party . . . all candidates will do the same amount of work.
And you might remember, Stauffer, as a third-party candidate, had to gather almost three times as many signatures the second time around that he gathered . . . so I see nothing wrong with standardizing the number of signatures for each candidate that wants to get on the ballot.

wherewasi
wherewasi topcommenter

@theloushow  It's not necessarily ONLY Libertarian voters who would vote for a Libertarian candidate.  Take for a prime example when Repugnant Montgomery ran for County Attorney with no Democrat or Independent opponent.  Kielsky threw his hat in the ring and took almost 30% of the vote basically by just having his name on the ballot as an alternative to Lap Dog Boy.

I'll bet Billy wet himself over that.  Just think what might have happened if Kielsky had actually mounted a campaign!

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...