The decision came as part of an ongoing challenge to the voting requirements approved on the November 2004 ballot as part of Proposition 200. The proposition, known as Protect Arizona Now, also includes the requirement that voters show identification at the polls.
Plaintiffs, including Indian tribes and Latino groups, were appealing a U.S. District Court decision not to put the citizenship requirement part of the law on hold until the lawsuit is settled.
The Appeals Court said there was insufficient evidence that the law severely burdens the right to vote or amounts to a "poll tax." Secretary of State Jan Brewer called the decision a victory for states' rights and for voters. "The people have spoken, and this is what they want in the state of Arizona," she said.
Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, a plaintiff, said the decision challenges plaintiffs to show more proof of the harm of the law as the case progresses in U.S. District Court.
"I'm confident once we are able to provide the full record of how it will impact voters in Arizona, particularly minority voters, that we will win on the merits," he said.
What has taken place is that many seem to confuse the inconvenient with undue burden and the two are not remotely the same. You can run all the surveys and try to concoct as many DISENFRANCHISED! tales as you wish, but until you can prove that providing ID at the polls is an undue burden, it makes no difference. Its not about a group, it is about the individual.
And before I hear about the "sacredness of the ballot" remember that I don't belong to the party of the Vote Lottery, or the abolishment of the secret ballot for voting on unions. Many Democrats' commitment to the franchise only seems to go as far as their own advantage.
And for once, the 9th circuit and I see eye to eye.