From the Dispatch

Anti-immigrant Proposals Continue to Fail in Wake of Arizona’s Law

Suman Raghunathan — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:05:36 -0400

In the wake of the April 2010 passage of Arizona’s draconian and misguided anti-immigrant state law, SB 1070, which would give local governments responsibility to enforce federal immigration law, media coverage has focused on the many states, elected officials, and candidates who have voiced their support for similar anti-immigrant legislation. Despite the disturbing situation in Arizona, however, what is increasingly becoming clear is that anti-immigrant policies and initiatives are failing across the country in the wake of SB 1070’s passage, underlining Arizona’s anti-immigrant approach as an outlier.

As this Dispatch will detail, after considerable media hype about Arizona-style bills sweeping across the nation, the reality is that from from Nevada to Arkansas to Massachusetts to Kansas and Rhode Island, anti-immigrant bills and ballot initiatives largely didn't move or failed to make this fall's ballot. A key reason: most state leaders and police chiefs recognize that requiring local governments to assume immigration enforcement responsibilities from the federal government will distract them from fighting violent crime and undermine trust with local residents that are essential to successful community policing.

Table of Contents:

- A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

- Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

- Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

A Trend of Failed Anti-Immigrant Proposals

In the wake of AZ SB 1070’s passage in late April, a far right network of groups and legislators announced plans to move bills in state around the country. But the list of states rejecting those bills continues to grow and efforts to get anti-immigrant proposals on the ballot continue to fail.

Ballot Initiatives Fail in Nevada and Arkansas: The latest state to join this list is Nevada, where Assemblyman Chad Christensen’s effort to gather signatures for an anti-immigrant ballot initiative similar to Arizona’s recently faltered in the face of a lawsuit. Christensen’s effort was challenged by the Nevada Open For Business Coalition, a group that includes State Assemblymen Mo Denis and Ruben Kihuen as well as the Nevada Resort Association, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce, and the NAACP. The coalition is also working with the Las Vegas Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The delay caused by the Coalition's multiple legal challenges caused Christensen, who recently lost a June 8 US Senate Primary, to drop his petition rather than attempt to get his broad anti-immigrant proposal on the ballot.

In Arkansas, the anti-immigrant group Secure Arkansas also failed to get its anti-immigrant proposal (which simply re-iterated existing federal law by seeking to bar undocumented immigrants over the age of 14 from receiving public assistance) on the November 2010 ballot. Secretary of State Charlie Daniels rejected the group’s petition after finding they were nearly 10,000 signatures below the minimum required to appear on the ballot.

Anti-Immigrant Legislation Defeated or Blocked in Multiple States: In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, state leadership refused to allow anti-immigrant legislation to gain traction. In Massachusetts, twenty-seven pages of anti-immigrant budget amendments that resembled Arizona's SB1070 was shot down and ultimately approved as a final bill which simply restated existing federal bars on undocumented immigrants accessing public benefits, and included no new anti-immigrant provisions.

Rhode Island’s anti-immigrant bill, introduced by conservative Democrat State Representative Peter Palumbo, did not even receive a public hearing earlier this summer: the bill was ‘killed’ by House Speaker Gordon Fox, who voiced his opposition to the bill and reiterated that enforcing immigration laws remains the responsibility of the federal government.

And in Kansas, when a conservative legislator sought to attach an Arizona-style anti-immigrant amendment to the state budget, Kansas Representative Delia Garcia challenged its late introduction on procedural grounds and the Republican chair of the chamber's Rules Committee ruled the amendment out of order.

Most High-Immigration States Have Taken a Positive Approach to Integrate New Immigrants: As PSN detailed in a 2008 report, only 11% of undocumented immigrants live in states that have enacted comprehensive punitive anti-immigrant policies. Far more states promote positive integration policies and believe leaving immigration enforcement policy to the federal government is the best approach.

Resources
Colorlines - The Far-Right Movement Behind Arizona Copycat Bill
Progressive States Network - The Anti-Immigrant Movement that Failed: Positive Integration Policies by States Still Far Outweigh Punitive Policies
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change

Anti-Immigrant Laws Increase Crime and Hamper Community Policing Efforts

One reason many leaders are rejecting Arizona-style anti-immigrant policies is the clear evidence that they undermine public safety. Police chiefs nationwide, including the chiefs of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, New York, Phoenix, and Tucson, have consistently underlined their opposition to local enforcement of federal immigration law, citing the dramatic and negative impact these approaches have on community members’ willingness to cooperate with the police -- and predicted they will increase crime. Law enforcement leaders such as Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris Burbank have voiced concerns that burdening them with enforcing federal immigration law will actually make communities less safe: witnesses will be less likely to assist police investigations for fear of disclosing their immigration status; women will fear reporting instances of domestic violence, and crimes will go unreported, affecting all residents' safety.

Recent evidence highlights this problem with anti-immigrant legislation.

More Immigrants Means Less Crime, Not More: Overall, states with high immigration levels have actually seen their crime levels decrease; updated FBI and law enforcement data debunk any connection between higher levels of immigration resulting in more crime. The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that violent crime declined by 35% from 1994 to 2001 -- a period when the nation saw its undocumented population double. This precipitous drop in crime is part of a national trend, one echoed along the U.S.-Mexico border and in immigrant-heavy cities such as San Diego, El Paso, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami. In fact, even conservative groups found states with the steepest growth among their immigrant residents also report the lowest crime rates. In these 19 states, the total crime rate declined nearly 14% from 1999 to 2006.

Arizona Itself Shows Failure of Anti-Immigrant Approach: Evidence from Arizona highlights why local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to fighting crime. The FBI reports that violent crime has been falling in Arizona for years -- even as the state’s number of undocumented residents rose.

The glaring exception to this trend in Arizona is Maricopa County, which falls under the jurisdiction of its notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio has devoted considerable (and often-scarce) law enforcement resources to apprehending undocumented residents county-wide. Arpaio’s insistence on apprehending otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents in high-profile (often televised) raids and routine stops of Latino drivers for immigration checks means the Sheriff’s Department has less time to focus on violent criminals and pursue felony warrants. The East Valley Tribune, an Arizona newspaper, won a 2008 Pulitzer Prize for their multi-part series on the evolution and impact of Arpaio’s anti-immigrant pursuits.

Despite his ‘law and order’ rhetoric, Arpaio’s approach is a failed law enforcement strategy, and one that has apparently served to increase crime in his jurisdiction-contrary to state crime trends. Recent data from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and compiled by America’s Voice found the Maricopa County crime rate increased by 58% from 2002 to 2009, while the state as a whole saw an average 12% decrease in crime rates. Other Arizona localities that did not engage in broad raids and traffic stops saw their crime rates plunge during the same period: Phoenix enjoyed a 14% decrease in crime; Tempe saw a 26% decrease; and Mesa (Senator Pearce’s district) experienced a 31% decrease.

Misinformation from the Anti-Immigrant Right: Many anti-immigrant legislators and candidates have issued a steady drumbeat of misinformation that attempts to draw a connection between immigrants and crime. AZ Governor Jan Brewer, State Sen Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and national anti-immigrant groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have attempted to justify and explain their efforts toward draconian state immigration legislation by claiming their proposals will make communities safer.

Yet even as Pearce and Brewer have, in fact, predicted that their state’s anti-immigrant measures will result in lower levels of crime throughout Arizona, evidence from Maricopa County shows that exporting Sheriff Joe Arpaio's brand of anti-immigrant policing will likely reverse the progress made in other parts of the state, imposing Maricopa's failed model on the the whole state.

Resources:
Immigration Policy Center - Arizona's Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime: Studies Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates Over Time
Immigration Policy Center - New FBI data Confirms Falling Crime Rates in Arizona: Violent Crimes Are Down in the State's Three Largest Cities
America's Voice - Arizona Immigration Law Could Lead to Surge in Violent Crime
America's Voice - Fact Sheet: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Notorious Record
East Valley Tribune - Reasonable Doubt Series
Washington Post - US Police Chiefs Say Arizona Immigration Law Will Increase Crime
Americas Majority Foundation - Immigration and Wealth of States

Lawsuits Against AZ SB 1070 Seek to Maintain Clear Federal Responsibility for Immigration Law

As the evidence increasingly points to how local police and sheriffs enforcing immigration law undermines community policing and increases crime rates, it becomes even clearer why the nation has traditionally kept responsibility for enforcing immigration law in the hands of federal officials. But as PSN has detailed before, Arizona’s law, unprecedented in its scope if it is implemented, would land immigration enforcement (a federal responsibility) squarely in the hands of state government.

This blurring of immigration enforcement roles between federal and state officials has already been legally challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least seven prominent national civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and these civil rights groups have filed lawsuits against Arizona’s law which is scheduled to take effect on July 29 if a federal court does not impose an injunction.

Arizona's Law Undermines Federalism and Threatens Racial Profiling: SB 1070’s scope is unprecedented, misguided, and likely unconstitutional: the law not only makes it a crime to lack immigration status, but also allows state and local law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship or immigration status from anyone they believe has ‘reasonable suspicion’ of being undocumented. Apart from greenlighting racial profiling, Arizona’s approach is widely perceived by legal experts as unconstitutional because it requires the state to take on enforcing federal immigration law.

A federal judge heard arguments outlining seven civil rights groups’ opposition to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law on July 22. These groups are asking for a preliminary injunction to freeze implementation of the law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29^th.

The lawsuit’s central legal argument (one echoed by the US Department of Justice’s own lawsuit challenging SB 1070) is the law seeks to pre-empt the federal government’s jurisdiction over enforcing federal immigration law, and that it allows the state too much power to enforce immigration law. Finally, the groups’ lawsuit states that implementing the law would cause considerable harm to Arizona residents as a whole. State legislators, immigrant rights advocates, and responsible law enforcement professionals will be hoping the federal courts agree.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Arizona and the Nation: A Failed State Versus Positive Approaches to Immigrant Integration
Progressive States Network - Arizona Jeopardizes its Economic Future As it Contemplates Passing Anti-Immigrant Law
National Immigration Law Center - NILC and Civil Rights Groups Ask Court to Block Implementation of Arizona Law
American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant Rights Project - Friendly House et.al vs. Halliday et. al: Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
Immigration Policy Center - The Impact of SB 1070: Usurping the Federal Government's Ability to Set Clear Enforcement Priorities
Immigration Policy Center - The Legal Challenges and Economic Realities of Arizona's SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Polling, The Arizona Law, and Majority Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Progressive States Network - Press Call: State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy

Indiana Supreme Court Upholds Restrictive Voter ID Law

Cristina Francisco-McGuire — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:37:48 -0400

In a disappointing turn of events, Indiana’s Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in favor of the state’s voter ID law, overturning last year’s decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals that deemed voter ID requirements unconstitutional partly because it treated those casting absentee ballots differently from those at voting booths. But in the end, the Indiana Supreme Court majority opinion stated, “It is within the power of the legislature to require voters to identify themselves at the polls using a photo ID.”

Disenfranchising Voters: While most states allow non-photo identification to establish identity, such as utility bills, payroll checks, or other government documents, Indiana only accepts photo ID’s issued by the state or federal government. Though the state allows those without ID’s to vote on provisional ballots, their votes are only counted if they are able to present proper ID within ten days.

The problem is that, while most Americans have government-issued ID’s, studies show that 6-10% of eligible voters don’t have a state-issued driver’s license or ID card, which amounts to potentially disenfranchising as many as 20 million people nationwide who are disproportionately poor, urban, non-white, and elderly.

The American Association of People with Disabilities further estimates that more than three million people with disabilities similarly do not possess state-issued photo ID.
Some US citizens – such as Native Americans born on reservations, and elderly African Americans born in the South under the care of midwives – were never issued birth certificates in the first place, a major roadblock to obtaining a state-issued photo ID.
Victims of natural disasters, such as Katrina, may also have had their original birth certificates destroyed.

A De Facto Poll Tax: In all cases, replacing these documents can be expensive and time-consuming – a new birth certificate can cost more than $40, while a new passport costs $97. Replacement citizenship documents for naturalized Americans costs $220. De facto poll tax aside, processing these requests can take as long as a year – during which time an otherwise eligible voter cannot vote.

And photo IDs don’t always reflect current information. Surveys show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their birth certificates have a certificate with their current legal name, while only 66% of voting-age women with access to any proof of citizenship have a document with their current legal name. 10% of all voting-age citizens have a photo ID that does not reflect their current address and current legal name. Among those aged 18-24, the percentage increases to 18%.

The burden of voter ID laws is real, and suppresses the vote of a demographic that is overwhelmingly poor, urban, non-white, and elderly. The decision of Indiana’s Supreme Court will only serve to further disenfranchise an already-disenfranchised population.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Voter ID Law Struck Down by Indiana Appellate Court
Demos Briefing Paper Series: Challenges to Fair Elections - Issue: Voter ID/proof of citizenship requirements for voting and registration
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Survey Indicates House Bill Could Deny Voting Rights to Millions of U.S. Citizens
NAACP Legal Defense Fund - Restrictive Voter Identification Laws: A Barrier to the Ballot Box for Eligible Voters
The Brennan Center for Justice - Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification
League of Women Voters v. Rokita

State Policymakers Need to Respond to Growing Clout of Latino Voters Nationwide

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:19:43 -0500

A recent report from the advocacy group America’s Voice highlighted the growing power of Latino voters in the upcoming 2010 elections. Latino voters played a critical role in 2008 to propel President Obama to victory in several key swing states that previously trended Republican, including Virginia. Latino voter registration and turnout rates have exploded over the past few years: roughly 10 million voted in the 2008 Presidential election alone, a 2.5 million increase from 2004 and 4 million person increase since 2000. Latino voter registration grew by over 54% between 2000 and 2008, and turnout grew 64% over the same time period.

The shifting composition of the electorate nationwide will increasingly affect state legislators and races. This trend is particularly evident in immigrant ‘new destination states’ in the South and Southwest, where growing numbers of immigrant residents are expected to translate into new Congressional districts after the 2010 Census. In response, progressive state leaders can take a few key steps:

Take Action on Immigrant Rights, a Defining Issue for Many Latinos: Immigration was not the number one issue for all Latino voters: like most Americans, the economy remains critical for them. Nevertheless, immigration reform remains important to a broad majority of Latinos as they make voting decisions. According to a May 2009 poll of Latino voters, 82% felt the issue was important to them and their families. Foreign-born Latinos (many of whom still have friends or family members who are documented residents but aren’t yet US citizens or who are undocumented) often feel comprehensive immigration reform and immigration policy is a top issue. State leaders can join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy to promote state policies that support immigrants and add their voices to those of other state legislators calling for comprehensive federal immigration reform.
Address Other Key Concerns of Latino Voters: Latino voters need to see progressive state leaders standing up for other key concerns as well, such as health care. A survey last November found Latino registered voters' top concern was health care reform, with 61% saying the government should ensure that all people have health insurance, even if it means raising taxes. Addressing core issues for working families is also key to cementing support from Latino voters.
Support Latino Voter Participation: State leaders can respond to increased Latino voter engagement by continuing to protect their voting rights. State leaders can encourage this trend by introducing and supporting measures to encourage voting such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and reforms, as well as strengthening civic engagement overall.
Support State-Level Policies and Programs that Integrate Immigrant Residents: Funding immigrant integration measures such as expanded ESL classes is critical for immigrant residents to fully participate in their community, yet demand continues to far outweigh supply for free or low-cost ESL classes. Waiting lists for ESL programs, which often receive some federal funding, remain long nationwide. English proficiency also translates to better wages for immigrant workers, as they can speak up for their rights at the workplace: one academic study found low-wage workers who moved up one English proficiency level saw a 30% increase in their wages.
Reach Spanish-Dominant Latinos: Foreign-born Latinos who predominantly speak Spanish are emerging as swing voters, and are a sizeable share of the Latino electorate: 40% were born outside the US and are naturalized US citizens. According to the New Democrat Network, the GOP more than doubled its share of the Latino vote from 1996 to 2004 by prioritizing outreach to Spanish-dominant Latinos. Both parties are well aware of this dynamic, and continue to step up their outreach: nearly 70% of 2008 immigration-related Presidential campaign ads were in Spanish.

Raising state voices in support of immigration reform is critical, especially in the wake of Congressional inaction on the issue. Despite repeated promises from White House and Congressional leaders to enact comprehensive immigration reform during President Obama's first year in office, momentum on comprehensive immigration reform has slowed in recent months. Yet the current federal vacuum on immigration reform presents an opportunity for states to craft progressive policies that support immigrant integration, such as English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and protect the rights of immigrant workers. Meanwhile, efforts continue toward comprehensive immigration reform: in an interview last week with Los Angeles’ Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión, US House of Representatives Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated her commitment to enacting comprehensive immigration reform this year – a message she notably has not broadcast in the mainstream media. Pelosi noted she recently raised the issue with President Obama, who said he would work with Congress to develop a bill this year.

Resources:
America's Voice - The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections: They Tipped Elections in 2008; Where Will They Be in 2010?
Latino Decisions/UNM RWJF Center/impreMedia - Survey of Latino Registered Voters
Progressive States Network - State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change

Voter ID Law Struck Down by Indiana Appellate Court

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:14:59 -0400

Last week the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down the photo identification requirement for voting that was upheld by the US Supreme Court in its Crawford decision last year. In doing so, the court ruled on the basis of equal protection as guaranteed by Indiana's state constitution, which is more extensive than federal law. The Indiana court follows Missouri, whose photo ID requirement was found unconstitutional under that state's constitution in 2006.

The Indiana Court of Appeals did not rule that requiring a photo ID to vote inherently violates equal protection, but they did find that the current exemptions to the ID requirement create classes of voters with different burdens and that those differences cannot be adequately justified by the state. Specifically, the exemptions from the ID requirement for those casting absentee ballots, or those living in a nursing home that is also a polling place, run afoul of the state constitutional mandate that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

In regard to the exemption for those who cast absentee ballots, the court pointed to a case where the state's high court had previously allowed the inclusion of extra requirements for absentee ballots based on "inherent differences [that] make mailed-in ballots more susceptible to improper influences or fraud." Therefore, the court found that it was irrational for the state to create a rule placing less scrutiny on absentee voters than it does on polling-place voters. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court found that a photo ID requirement was not necessary to protect the state's interest in preventing voter fraud because there was no evidence at all that voter impersonation occurred in Missouri, the only form of fraud addressed by ID requirements. With regard to the exemption for residents of nursing homes that are also polling places, the court found that the law failed in its requirement to treat similarly situated individuals the same.

True to form, the Governor and Secretary of State were quick to disparage the ruling as "arrogant" and those who brought the case as "irresponsible." Both seem to believe that if the US Supreme Court has ruled on the federal constitutionality of a law, there is no place for the state courts to rule on the same law's constitutionality under their state Constitution. Given their high positions in state government, such a view is sad if not surprising.

Decision Appears to Mark Shift in Best Venue for Voting Restriction Challenges: Two important lessons come from state courts striking down voter ID laws on constitutional grounds. First, state courts are showing themselves more exploratory than the federal courts in assessing governments' justifications for voter ID laws. In both Indiana and the earlier Missouri case, the court found that the laws, or parts of them, were not narrowly tailored to achieving the governments' interests. The Supreme Court in Crawford was much more willing to accept the government's justifications even when they didn't appear to have any facts to point to (ie. relying on references to voter fraud from the 19th century to justify current ID requirements).

The other important lesson is that as the US Supreme Court becomes more conservative, especially in the context of voting rights, it will fall to state constitutional protections to preserve the right to vote from further encroachment. Even in conservative states, as the cases from Indiana and Missouri illustrate, the constitutions themselves, and the judicial interpretation of those constitutions, will possibly be a more fertile ground for challenges against voting restrictions than their federal counterparts. While the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to make a final ruling, signs are pointing to a shift of where voting rights will find their best protection as we move into the future.

Resources:
NY Times - Indiana Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law
League of Women Voters v Rokita
Weinschenk v Missouri
Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette - Simple Ruling on Voter ID

Georgia Becomes 2nd State to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:59:57 -0400

Following Arizona's lead, Georgia has passed a law requiring that all residents prove their citizenship before they can register to vote. This is the most restrictive form of voter ID yet, and it is far more restrictive than the photo ID requirements that have been passed across the country. It has been enacted even though there is no indication that non-citizen voting is a problem in the state; in fact, Georgia election officials are confident that the current photo ID requirement is strict enough to prevent any problems from arising.

Just how disenfranchising Georgia's new law will be is indicated by a national survey of voters conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice. The survey found:

As many as 13 million people do not have documentary proof of citizenship.

The rate for people earning less than $25,000 is more than twice as likely to lack proof, than people earning more.

One third of women do not have documentary proof of citizenship with their current legal name.

Perhaps most troubling about this law is that it clearly constitutes a poll tax. Unlike the Indiana photo ID law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, there is no provision for issuing free citizenship documents to poor voters in Georgia. Any person wishing to register must supply proof of citizenship, even if they don't have enough money to obtain such proof.

Fortunately, the law will not go into effect until it has been reviewed by the US Dept of Justice. While DOJ cleared the Arizona proof-of-citizenship law in the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance process (VRA section 5), Arizona's proof-of-citizenship law was approved by the then-Bush Administration DOJ. Observers expect the review to be far more probing this time given the new administration's stated commitment to voting rights.

Georgia's new law clearly illustrates the continuing need for Voting Rights Act pre-clearance, increasing the stakes in a coming Supreme Court decision on whether to strike down the pre-clearance provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. Should the court strike down section 5, Georgia voters' last hope for preventing this law from going into effect will be lost. If that is the case, a legal challenge is likely.

Resources:
Brennan Center for Justice - Citizens Without Proof
Brennan Center for Justice - Survey of Georgia Election Officials
Senate Bill 86
AZCentral - Georgia Follows Arizona on Citizenship for Voters
Alliance for Justice - Supreme Court to Re-examine Voting Rights Act

Florida Rightwing Attempts to Suppress Voting Rights with Election Restrictions

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:57:08 -0400

Just weeks before the end of the legislative session, rightwing lawmakers in Florida are advancing omnibus legislation that progressive voting rights advocates and legislators see as yet another scheme to reduce voter turnout and manipulate election rules to the benefit of conservatives. The omnibus legislation was sprung on unsuspecting legislators and advocates the day before it was voted on in a Senate committee, where only a few minutes of debate were allowed before a party-line vote.

Touted as a collection of "anti-fraud" measures, SB 956/HB 7149 the bill is actually designed to put barriers in the way of registering and voting on election day, including:

Removing identification from retirement centers and neighborhood associations identification from the list of acceptable voter ID which would have a devastating impact on elderly and disabled voters.
First-time voters would not be able prove their identity at the polls on election day, but would have to provide it before election day, a requirement that no other state has.
Requiring voter registration forms collected by third parties to be submitted within 48 hours of when they are filled out. This provision and the associated penalties would effectively shut down independent voter registration drives in Florida, something the state has tried to do before.
Force voters who move within a month of election day to vote by provisional ballot.

The bill would also substantially reduce the accountability of politicians and prevent the full and accurate counting of ballots as a matter of policy:

County party chairmen will have the exclusive right to designate poll watchers.
People "offering legal advice regarding voting or ballots" are specifically prevented from communicating with voters inside or outside a polling place or in line to vote.
Political committees registered in other states are exempted from complying with campaign finance laws.
Slush funds for political leaders to make unregulated donations to other politicians are specifically allowed by the bill, reversing an earlier prohibition.
Puts a strict, one-week limit on the duration of any post-election audits of ballots; and mandates that elections will be certified a week and a half after a primary and two weeks after a general election, regardless of whether all votes have been counted or recounted.
Makes the unelected Secretary of State solely responsible for ordering a recount in all but local elections.

Bill Condemned Throughout State: This toxic stew of provisions have raised considerable ire in the state and nationally, with editorial boards, labor leaders, voting rights activists, and lawmakers railing against this naked power grab in the guise of election reform. Commenting on the less than six minutes of debate and 60 seconds of public input that led to a vote in committee, Rich Templin, executive director of the Florida AFL-CIO, said "[t]hey are certainly violating any premise of good government, any premise of open government, any premise of transparency, or the cornerstones of representative democracy." Regarding the substance of the measure Templin opined that "[t]his bill should really be called the Florida Democracy Reduction Act. It is designed to reduce people’s participation, to reduce people voting, and to reduce people’s access to the process." Republican Governor Charlie Crist is unhappy with the legislation's disenfranchising elements. While not issuing a veto threat, he had the following to say:

"The more opportunity you give people to vote, the better it is for democracy. So that aspect of it concerns me...It always seems to me that when there may be legislation that attempts to sort of make it harder for people to do something – the people that we work for – generally that’s not good. I don’t look on that in a favorable light and that is true of this particular part of this legislation."

Attempts to twist voting rules to suppress voter turnout are not surprising given the thumping that conservatives have taken at the polls in recent years. And while Florida is once again leading the pack in shady voting changes, it is in keeping with similar tactics of suppressing voter drives, loosening campaign regulations, and using ID requirements to thwart elderly voters, that have surfaced in other states.

Resources:
Florida Senate Bill 956
St. Petersburg Times - With Little Discussion, Florida House Council Passes Sweeping Changes to Voting Rules
St. Petersburg Times - GOP Power Grab is an Affront to Voters
New York Times - Suppressing the Vote in Florida
AFL-CIO - Legislators Restricting Voter Access in Florida

E-verify: An Economic Burden to Businesses and State Budgets

Caroline Fan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:09:14 -0500

A new resource from our friends at the National Immigration Law Center emphasizes the costs to both businesses and local governments of trying to enforce immigration law in the workplace. As they note, the E-verify system - the electronic program that is currently voluntary for employers to use in comparing workers’ documents for employment eligibility against federal databases from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration - imposes a range of costs:

Costly Database Errors: The Social Security Administration estimated that its own database errors alone could result in 3.6 million workers a year being misidentified as not authorized for employment - costly mistakes that could slow hiring throughout the economy. E-verify leaves workers who are in the system at great risk of having their identity mistaken (Intel found that almost 13% of the workers they ran through E-verify in 2008 were falsely flagged as being unauthorized) or even worse, stolen, since Department of Homeland Security databases were given a D for security measures by the US House Oversight Committee.
High Business Costs: The Chamber of Commerce concluded that the net societal costs of implementing E-verify just for federal government contractors alone would be $10 billion a year, to say nothing of all employers. Corporations that have tried to implement E-Verify have found it to be extremely faulty and the process uneven and counter-intuitive, which is why 99% of businesses have declined to participate. And small businesses, which have fewer resources, face even greater burdens in implementing the changes. This doesn’t factor in the costs of potential litigation for employers who improperly use the system to discriminate against workers, including preemployment screening, adverse action based on tentative nonconfirmation notices, and failure to inform workers of their rights under the program.
Encouraging Expansion of Underground Economy: Furthermore, it is not even guaranteed that E-verify would accomplish its purpose of preventing employers from hiring undocumented immigrants. A study by the Congressional Budget Office of the SAVE Act, which was proposed by the last Congress, found that mandatory implementation of E-verify would lead more companies to bypass the unwieldy system and enter the underground economy, costing more than $17.3 billion over ten years of unpaid Social Security taxes. The CBO also found that in a single year, implementing the bill would cost private-sector employers $136 million and state and local governments $68 million to comply with the employment verification requirements.
Creating Costly Litigation: For states, implementing E-verify could be a hasty move that would be pre-empted by federal legislation, and could result in unnecessary and costly litigation. For example, the cost to the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania for defending its ordinance has already totaled more than $200,000, and the potential plaintiffs’ legal fees could be as high as $2.4 million.

Fortunately, E-verify provisions were stripped out of the recent stimulus bill. However, states like Nebraska, Indiana, and Rhode Island that are looking at adopting legislation to mandate E-verify for government contractors or all employers would do well to carefully consider all of the substantial costs of implementation in a year where budgets for essential services like health care and education are being slashed to the bone.

Better yet, to address the underlying causes of the underground economy, legislators in those states should introduce wage enforcement legislation to hold unscrupulous employers accountable for meeting existing wage and hour laws, and ensure that they are paying their workers’ salaries, as well as state taxes in an accurate manner. Iowa , New Mexico , and North Carolina are among the states that are looking to raise the labor standards for all workers, immigrant and US born alike.

Resources

National Immigration Law Center -- Basic Pilot/E-verify
Iowa SF 157 -- Model legislation on wage enforcement

Voter ID: The Landscape for 2009

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:51:31 -0500

As we noted in the Dispatch a couple weeks ago, despite a dearth of recent successes and mounting fiscal crises in most states, rightwing voter ID legislation designed to suppress voter turnout continues to be pressed around the country. So far this year at least 17 states have seen bills introduced to institute or enhance ID requirements for voting or registration (AL, CO, GA, IN, MD, MN, MS, MO, NY, OK, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY). It appears we now know enough to predict the landscape of the voter ID battles in this legislative session.

Old Battlegrounds Endure: For the most part the same states where this issue was out front last year will continue to be the focus of voter ID proponents. It is already clear that Texas and Oklahoma will retain their positions near the top of states that make this a priority issue. Oklahoma now has very conservative majorities controlling both chambers, giving confidence to proponents that this will be their year in that state. Oklahoma just barely failed to pass legislation last session when opponents attached pro-voter amendments that killed the bill and is the closest to a "sure thing" that ID proponents have in 2009.

In Tennessee, while there is a strong push for the legislation, there are still concerns over the cost of the proposed photo ID requirement given the state's fiscal problems. One state that may see the issue hit a new roadblock is Missouri, which just elected a Democratic governor. Much of the frantic push for a proof-of-citizenship law in that state last session was generated by the expectation that the GOP would lose the governorship, putting a voter ID bill out of reach. Filling out the ranks of states where the issue will be front and center are Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

Opening Moves and Prospects: In Texas, having been frustrated in attempts over the past two years to enact photo-ID legislation, GOP Senators chose the Texas version of the "nuclear option" and have exempted the voter ID bill from the two-thirds majority requirement observed in the Texas Senate, which has caused great acrimony and could backfire among moderate legislators. A strong coalition of progressive advocates and legislators are working furiously against the measure. As Sen. Rodney Ellis, a leader in those efforts, argues, "supporters of [voter ID bills] continue to throw charges, anecdotal evidence and rhetoric around, but cannot point to one single case of voter impersonation. Those of us opposed, however can cite case after case of voter intimidation and suppression."

Mississippi is replaying the dance it did last year with the Senate quickly moving forward to pass a bill, while House Democrats are willing to pass a more modest, non-photo-ID requirement, but have also added early voting to their bill. The GOP, led on this issue by Sec. of State Hoseman, has rejected this compromise. Further complicating matters for voter ID proponents, Senators amended their bill to exempt people born before 1945, causing the sponsor to recommit the bill for consideration after it had been passed. In Alabama, the Attorney General included voter ID in his criminal justice program package, but an Associated Press whip count found just less than majority support in both houses of the legislature with a substantial minority opposed.

Legal Challenge to Georgia Law Fails: A three judge panel for the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals rejected the challenge against Georgia's government-issued photo ID law. There are two proof-of-citizenship bills and one to require a birth certificate for voter registration introduced in Georgia so far this session.

Measures Defeated: Two states have quickly defeated voter ID bills in committee - Colorado and, surprisingly, Wyoming where opponents gave the sponsor of the legislation what he called "a beating." The pugilists included the Wyoming County Clerks Association and the Sec. of State's top elections official, who warned that the state's high turnout would go "down the tubes" if the bill passed.

Additionally, the Chair of the Government Operations Committee in Minnesota has announced that a bill will be considered there, but passage is not likely. The bills are also "DOA" in heavily Democratic New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island, though rare support from a Democratic Sec. of State combined with that of the Republican governor in Rhode Island perhaps adds a question mark to that state.

Trend on Proof-of Citizenship Bills: While progressives had some fears that proof-of-citizenship bills would constitute a second wave of voter ID legislation this session, so far that does not appear to be the case. We are aware of only four states that have proof-of-citizenship legislation introduced - CO, GA, MO, and TN. Troublingly, passage can't be ruled out in three of the four states.

No Big Shifts Appear Likely: While a handful of states are in danger of passing voter ID enhancements this session, only one state - Mississippi - seems likely to institute an ID requirement for the first time. This suggests that growth of voter ID laws has stabilized, with over 20 states rejecting the idea that voter ID serves the public interest.

Battles Over Voter ID Requirements Loom Large in 2009 Sessions

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:49:22 -0500

Last year we saw the incredible wave of voter ID legislation promoted nationwide by rightwing activists seem to peter out. High profile campaigns for restrictive photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, which limit the voting of many legal citizens (see here and here), were met with defeat. But the proponents of voter ID have apparently not been deterred. The good people at Project Vote, who have been monitoring voter ID legislation across the country, are finding that rightwing lawmakers in key states continue to place voter ID at the top of their to-do list. This is despite the passing of another election without any evidence of the type of fraud that voter ID requirements would help prevent - someone attempting to register and vote twice in the same state.

From Texas to Missouri to Virginia, conservative legislators are promising to push the issue as hard as ever. But, despite their determination and earlier successes in some states, progressive legislators and voting rights advocates have proven that passage of such measures is not guaranteed. Missouri is perhaps the most important example, as voter ID proponents were basically declaring victory at the end of last session only to see their efforts fall short. That victory for voters was made possible by strong coordinated action by legislators, local advocates and national groups. Similar efforts and coordination will likely be required to defeat these measures again this year.

Regular readers of our Dispatch are aware that evidence of voter fraud is thin at best. Yet, time and again conservatives raise this red herring to justify suppressive voting laws. Progressive legislators in states with voter ID battles brewing can bolster their position by vigorously refuting these false claims of fraud, and highlighting the impact that voter ID requirements have on the ability of elderly, disabled, young, and married female voters to cast their ballots. Additionally, strong voter protection legislation that sanctions intimidation, deception and voter caging can be introduced to deal with the very real problems of voter suppression, which unlike fraud, we see in every election.

Resources
Project Vote - Voter ID Still a Looming Threat for 2009
Progressive States Network - Resist Vote Suppression by the Right Wing
Demos - Voter ID Issue Brief
Brennan Center for Justice - Alternatives to Voter ID Policy Brief
Project Vote - The Politics of Voter Fraud
Model Voter Protection Legislation

Battles Over Voter ID Requirements Loom Large in 2009 Sessions

Caroline Fan — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:14:55 -0500