Wednesday, August 03, 2005

The answer, Californians should adopt a similar act

Many people in California can't understand the failure of our prop 187. This is the exact text of Arizona's act, we should form it to our needs in California. It has already withstood a challenge in the courts.


PROPOSITION 200
OFFICIAL TITLE
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
AMENDING SECTIONS 16-152, 16-166 AND 16-579, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 46, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE 3, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 46-140.01; RELATING TO THE ARIZONA TAXPAYER
AND CITIZEN PROTECTION ACT.
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Short title
This act may be cited as the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen
Protection Act".
Sec. 2. Findings and declaration
This state finds that illegal immigration is causing economic
hardship to this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged
by public agencies within this state that provide public
benefits without verifying immigration status. This state further
finds that illegal immigrants have been given a safe
haven in this state with the aid of identification cards that are
issued without verifying immigration status, and that this
conduct contradicts federal immigration policy, undermines
the security of our borders and demeans the value of citizenship.
Therefore, the people of this state declare that the
public interest of this state requires all public agencies within
this state to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to
discourage illegal immigration.
Sec. 3. Section 16-152, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
amended to read:
16-152. Registration form
A. The form used for the registration of electors shall contain:
1. The date the registrant signed the form.
2. The given name of the registrant, middle name, if any, and
surname.
3. Complete address of actual place of residence, including
street name and number, apartment or space number, city
or town and zip code, or such description of the location of
the residence that it can be readily ascertained or identified.
4. Complete mailing address, if different from residence
address, including post office address, city or town, zip code
or other designation used by the registrant for receiving
mail.
5. Party preference.
6. Telephone number, unless unlisted.
7. State or country of birth.
8. Date of birth.
9. Occupation.
10. Indian census number (optional to registrant).
11. Father's name or mother's maiden name.
12. The last four digits of the registrant's social security
number (optional to registrant).
13. A statement as to whether or not the registrant is currently
registered in another state, county or precinct, and if
so, the name, address, county and state of previous registration.
14. A statement that the registrant is a citizen of the United
States.
15. A statement that the registrant will be eighteen years of
age on or before the date of the next general election.
16. A statement that the registrant has not been convicted of
treason or a felony, or if so, that the registrant's civil rights
have been restored.
17. A statement that the registrant is a resident of this state
and of the county in which the registrant is registering.
18. A statement that executing a false registration is a class
6 felony.
19. The signature of the registrant.
20. If the registrant is unable to sign the form, a statement
that the affidavit was completed according to the registrant's
direction.
21. A statement that if an applicant declines to register to
vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will
remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration
purposes.
22. A statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the
office at which the applicant submits a voter registration
application will remain confidential and will be used only for
voter registration purposes.
23. A STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT
EVIDENCE OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP WITH
THE APPLICATION AND THAT THE REGISTRAR SHALL
REJECT THE APPLICATION IF NO EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP
IS ATTACHED.
B. A duplicate voter receipt shall be provided with the form
that provides space for the name, street address and city of
residence of the applicant, party preference and the date of
signing. The voter receipt is evidence of valid registration for
the purpose of casting a ballot to be verified as prescribed in
section 16-584, subsection B.
C. The state voter registration form shall be printed in a form
prescribed by the secretary of state.
D. The county recorder may establish procedures to verify
whether a registrant has successfully petitioned the court for
an injunction against harassment pursuant to section 12-
1809 or an order of protection pursuant to section 12-1810
or 13-3602 and, if verified, to protect the registrant's residence
address, telephone number or voting precinct number,
if appropriate, from public disclosure.
Sec. 4. Section 16-166, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
amended to read:
16-166. Verification of registration
A. Except for the mailing of sample ballots, a county
recorder who mails an item to any elector shall send the
mailing by nonforwardable first class mail marked with the
statement required by the postmaster to receive an address
correction notification. If the item is returned undelivered,
the county recorder shall send a follow-up notice to that
elector within three weeks of receipt of the returned notice.
The county recorder shall send the follow-up notice to the
address that appears on the general county register or to
the forwarding address provided by the United States postal
service. The follow-up notice shall include a registration
Arizona
2004 Ballot Propositions Proposition 200
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004
41
form and the information prescribed by section 16-131, subsection
C and shall state that if the elector does not complete
and return a new registration form with current
information to the county recorder within thirty-five days, the
name of the elector will be removed from the general register
and transferred to the inactive voter list.
B. If the elector provides the county recorder with a new registration
form, the county recorder shall change the general
register to reflect the changes indicated on the new registration.
If the elector indicates a new residence address outside
that county, the county recorder shall forward the voter registration
form to the county recorder of the county in which the
elector's address is located. If the elector provides a new
residence address that is located outside this state, the
county recorder shall cancel the elector's registration.
C. The county recorder shall maintain on the inactive voter
list the names of electors who have been removed from the
general register pursuant to subsection A or E of this section
for a period of four years or through the date of the second
general election for federal office following the date of the
notice from the county recorder that is sent pursuant to subsection
E of this section.
D. On notice that a government agency has changed the
name of any street, route number, post office box number or
other address designation, the county recorder shall revise
the registration records and shall send a new verification of
registration notice to the electors whose records were
changed.
E. The county recorder on or before May 1 of each year preceding
a state primary and general election or more frequently
as the recorder deems necessary may use the
change of address information supplied by the postal service
through its licensees to identify registrants whose
addresses may have changed. If it appears from information
provided by the postal service that a registrant has moved to
a different residence address in the same county, the county
recorder shall change the registration records to reflect the
new address and shall send the registrant a notice of the
change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid preaddressed
return form by which the registrant may verify or
correct the registration information. If the registrant fails to
return the form postmarked not later than twenty-nine days
before the next election, the elector shall be removed from
the general register and transferred to the inactive voter list.
If the notice sent by the recorder is not returned, the registrant
may be required to provide affirmation or confirmation
of the registrant's address in order to vote. If the registrant
does not vote in an election during the period after the date of
the notice from the recorder through the date of the second
general election for federal office following the date of
that notice, the registrant's name shall be removed from the
list of inactive voters. If the registrant has changed residence
to a new county, the county recorder shall provide
information on how the registrant can continue to be eligible
to vote.
F. THE COUNTY RECORDER SHALL REJECT ANY
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION THAT IS NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP SHALL INCLUDE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
1. THE NUMBER OF THE APPLICANT'S DRIVER
LICENSE OR NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION
LICENSE ISSUED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1996 BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR THE EQUIVALENT
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF ANOTHER STATE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IF THE AGENCY INDICATES
ON THE APPLICANT'S DRIVER LICENSE OR
NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE THAT THE
PERSON HAS PROVIDED SATISFACTORY PROOF OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.
2. A LEGIBLE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICANT'S
BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT VERIFIES CITIZENSHIP TO
THE SATISFACTION OF THE COUNTY RECORDER.
3. A LEGIBLE PHOTOCOPY OF PERTINENT PAGES OF
THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES PASSPORT IDENTIFYING
THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S PASSPORT
NUMBER OR PRESENTATION TO THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES
PASSPORT.
4. A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION
DOCUMENTS OR THE NUMBER OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION. IF ONLY THE NUMBER OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION IS PROVIDED, THE
APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRATION
ROLLS UNTIL THE NUMBER OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION IS VERIFIED WITH THE
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE BY THE COUNTY RECORDER.
5. OTHER DOCUMENTS OR METHODS OF PROOF THAT
ARE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE IMMIGRATION
REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.
6. THE APPLICANT'S BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
CARD NUMBER, TRIBAL TREATY CARD NUMBER OR
TRIBAL ENROLLMENT NUMBER.
G. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION,
ANY PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED IN THIS
STATE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT
TO THIS SECTION IS DEEMED TO HAVE PROVIDED
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP AND
SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO RESUBMIT EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP UNLESS THE PERSON IS CHANGING
VOTER REGISTRATION FROM ONE COUNTY TO
ANOTHER.
H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, PROOF OF
VOTER REGISTRATION FROM ANOTHER STATE OR
COUNTY IS NOT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.
I. A PERSON WHO MODIFIES VOTER REGISTRATION
RECORDS WITH A NEW RESIDENCE BALLOT SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.
AFTER CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED
TO THE COUNTY RECORDER, THE PERSON IS NOT
REQUIRED TO RESUBMIT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP IN THAT COUNTY.
J. AFTER A PERSON HAS SUBMITTED SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP, THE COUNTY RECORDER
SHALL INDICATE THIS INFORMATION IN THE PERSON'S
PERMANENT VOTER FILE. AFTER TWO YEARS
THE COUNTY RECORDER MAY DESTROY ALL DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.
Arizona
Proposition 200 2004 Ballot Propositions
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004
42
Sec. 5. Section 16-579, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
amended to read:
16-579. Procedure for obtaining ballot by elector
A. Every qualified elector, before receiving his ballot, shall
announce his name and place of residence in a clear, audible
tone of voice to the election official in charge of the signature
roster or present his name and residence in writing
AND SHALL PRESENT ONE FORM OF IDENTIFICATION
THAT BEARS THE NAME, ADDRESS AND PHOTOGRAPH
OF THE ELECTOR OR TWO DIFFERENT FORMS
OF IDENTIFICATION THAT BEAR THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF THE ELECTOR. If the name is found upon
the precinct register by the election officer having charge
thereof, or the qualified elector presents a certificate from the
county recorder showing that he is entitled by law to vote
in the precinct, the election official in charge of the signature
roster shall repeat the name and the qualified elector shall
be allowed within the voting area.
B. Any qualified elector who is listed as having applied for
an early ballot but who states that he has not voted and will
not vote an early ballot for this election or surrenders the
early ballot to the precinct inspector on election day shall be
allowed to vote pursuant to the procedure set forth in section
16-584.
C. Each qualified elector's name shall be numbered consecutively
by the clerks, with the number upon the stub of the
ballot delivered to him, and in the order of applications for
ballots. The election judge having charge of the ballots shall
also write his initials upon the stub and the number of the
qualified elector as it appears upon the precinct register.
The judge shall give the qualified elector only one ballot, and
his name shall be immediately checked on the precinct register.
D. Each qualified elector shall sign his name in the signature
roster prior to receiving his ballot, but an inspector or judge
may sign the roster for an elector who is unable to sign
because of physical disability, and in that event the name of
the elector shall be written with red ink, and no attestation or
other proof shall be necessary. The provisions of this subsection
relating to signing the signature roster shall not
apply to electors casting a ballot using early voting procedures.
E. A person offering to vote at a special district election for
which no special district register has been supplied shall
sign an affidavit stating his address and that he resides
within the district boundaries or proposed district boundaries
and swearing that he is a qualified elector and has not
already voted at the election being held.
Sec. 6. Title 46, chapter 1, article 3, Arizona Revised Statutes,
is amended by adding section 46-140.01, to read:
46-140.01. Verifying applicants for public benefits; violation;
classification; citizen suits
A. AN AGENCY OF THIS STATE AND ALL OF ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, INCLUDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
THAT ARE NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED SHALL
DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF EACH APPLICANT FOR
THOSE BENEFITS AND VERIFY THAT THE APPLICANT
IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS
SECTION.
2. PROVIDE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THIS STATE
OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH INFORMATION
TO VERIFY THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
ANY APPLICANT FOR THOSE BENEFITS AND ASSIST
THE EMPLOYEE IN OBTAINING THAT INFORMATION FROM
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.
3. REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY IDENTIFICATION CARD
ISSUED BY THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
OF THIS STATE, INCLUDING A DRIVER LICENSE,
TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OR DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY
FOR THOSE BENEFITS UNLESS THE ISSUING
AUTHORITY HAS VERIFIED THE IMMIGRATION STATUS
OF THE APPLICANT.
4. REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE AND ITS
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO MAKE A WRITTEN
REPORT TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
FOR ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW
BY ANY APPLICANT FOR BENEFITS AND THAT IS DISCOVERED
BY THE EMPLOYEE.
B. FAILURE TO REPORT DISCOVERED VIOLATIONS OF
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW BY AN EMPLOYEE IS A
CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR. IF THAT EMPLOYEE'S
SUPERVISOR KNEW OF THE FAILURE TO REPORT AND
FAILED TO DIRECT THE EMPLOYEE TO MAKE THE
REPORT, THE SUPERVISOR IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 2
MISDEMEANOR.
C. THIS SECTION SHALL BE ENFORCED WITHOUT
REGARD TO RACE, RELIGION, GENDER, ETHNICITY
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. ANY PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT
OF THIS STATE SHALL HAVE STANDING IN ANY
COURT OF RECORD TO BRING SUIT AGAINST ANY
AGENT OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS TO REMEDY ANY VIOLATION OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING AN ACTION
FOR MANDAMUS. COURTS SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE
TO ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THIS SECTION OVER
OTHER CIVIL ACTIONS OR PROCEEDING PENDING IN
THE COURT.
Sec. 7. Severability
If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance
is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other
provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end
the provisions of this act are severable.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Proposition 200 would require that evidence of United States citizenship be presented by every person to register to
vote, that proof of identification be presented by every voter at the polling place prior to voting, that state and local governments
verify the identity of all applicants for certain public benefits and that government employees report United States
immigration law violations by applicants for public benefits.
Proposition 200 provides that for purposes of registering to vote, satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship
Arizona
2004 Ballot Propositions Proposition 200
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004 43
includes:
• an Arizona driver or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996.
• a driver or nonoperating identification license issued by another state if the license indicates that the person has provided
proof of United States citizenship.
• a copy of the applicant's birth certificate.
• a United States passport, or a copy of the pertinent pages of the passport.
• United States naturalization documents or a verified certificate of naturalization number.
• a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.
• other documents or methods of proof that may be established by the federal government for the purpose of verifying
employment eligibility.
The county recorder shall indicate this information in the person's permanent voter file for at least two years. A voter
registration card from another county or state does not constitute satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. A person
who is registered to vote on the date that Proposition 200 becomes effective is not required to submit evidence of citizenship
unless the person moves to a different county. Once a person has submitted sufficient evidence of citizenship, the
person is not required to resubmit the evidence when making changes to voter registration information in the county where
the evidence has been submitted.
Proposition 200 requires that prior to receiving a ballot at a polling place, a voter must present either one form of identification
that contains the name, address and photograph of the person or two different forms of identification that contain the
name and address of the person.
Proposition 200 requires that a state or local governmental entity that is responsible for administering "state and local
public benefits that are not federally mandated" must:
• verify the identity and eligibility for each applicant for the public benefits.
• provide other state and local government employees with information to verify immigration status of applicants applying
for public benefits and must also assist other state and local government employees in obtaining immigration status information
from federal immigration authorities.
• refuse to accept any state or local government identification card, including a driver license, to establish identity or eligibility
for public benefits unless the governmental entity that issued the card has verified the immigration status of the applicant.
• require all state and local government employees to make a written report to federal immigration authorities upon discovering
a violation of federal immigration laws by an applicant for public benefits. An employee or supervisor who fails to
make the required report is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, potentially punishable by a jail sentence of up to 4 months and
a fine of up to $750, plus applicable surcharges.
Any resident of this state would have standing to bring a court action against the state, a local governmental entity or an
agent of a state or local governmental entity to remedy a violation of the public benefits verification law including bringing an
action to compel a government official to comply with the law.
Proposition 200 does not define the term "state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated".
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain
ballot measures. Proposition 200 does not define the term "state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated."
Proposition 200's provision requiring verification of an applicant's eligibility for receipt of state and local benefits may
affect the number of persons receiving benefits. The proposition's verification requirements may affect the workload of state
and local government agencies. The JLBC Staff is unable to quantify the fiscal impact of these provisions.
ARGUMENTS "FOR" PROPOSITION 200
PAN's Ballot Measure Argument
The Arizona Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act requires only (1) proof of citizenship to register to vote, (2) photo I.D.
when voting, and (3) proof of eligibility to collect welfare in Arizona.
(1) and (2): Arizona now allows people to declare themselves citizens without documentation to be qualified to vote.
The Act utilizes forms of I.D. citizens already have. There is evidence of hundreds of thousands of unverified names on our
voter rolls (and that's with nobody even checking citizenship verification). We have to provide adequate I.D. to cash checks,
enroll children in little league, get a Blockbuster card, go to the Phoenix city dump, etc. Isn't voting as important as renting a
video or going to the city dump?
(3): A.R.S. Title 46 covers only welfare, not public safety services such as police and fire. This Act amends only A.R.S.
46-140 to remove the welfare department's current practice of granting immunity from prosecution to illegal aliens. The current
law already requires state employees (and their supervisors if applicable), to report fraud-even if committed "by mistake"
- to the state department under penalty of a misdemeanor. Yet, AHCCCS's (Arizona Medicaid) application clearly
states twice in bold letters that "AHCCCS will not report any information to . . . (BCIS, formerly INS)." The AHCCCS further
states that everyone applying for AHCCCS must furnish their Social Security number, but "immigrants who are not legally able
to obtain a [SSN] are not required to provide one." The welfare system in Arizona is obviously set up for fraud. It's no
Arizona
Arguments "For" Proposition 200 2004 Ballot Propositions
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004
44
wonder AHCCCS costs increased from $200 million in FY 2001 to a staggering $1.2 billion in FY 2003 - a whopping 600%
increase in just 3 years.
The Act does not change eligibility requirements to vote or collect welfare, and applies to everyone equally. What could be
fairer?
Kathy McKee, Chairman, Protect Arizona NOW, Phoenix
Paid for by "Protect Arizona Now"
Citizens of Arizona,
The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act ("Initiative") simply protects the rights that are guaranteed by our constitution
to all citizens. As stated in section 12 of the Arizona Constitution:
"There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the
elective franchise."
The Initiative will prevent non-citizens from being able to register to vote in Arizona. Currently, no proof of citizenship is
required. A person can register to vote by mail or over the Internet and have a ballot mailed to them. The Initiative will
require all citizens to show proof of citizenship the first time they register to vote. The Initiative will require registered voters
to provide proof of identity when obtaining a ballot whether in person or by mail.
The initiative also requires proof of eligibility for an applicant to receive non-federally mandated public benefits. Arizona
statutes already require proof of eligibility when an applicant applies for state or local benefits. The initiative simply requires
everyone to provide a specified and approved form of identification when applying for state and local benefits. It further
requires government employees to provide a written report to federal immigration authorities for any violation of federal
immigration laws by any applicant that is discovered by the employee.
I urge you to vote yes on the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. It treats all Arizona citizens equally and fairly
under the law.
Randy Pullen, Chairman, Yes on Proposition 200, Phoenix
Paid for by "Yes on Proposition 200"
The Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act is a reasonable measure designed to help state agencies enforce current
law. This measure simply revises two sections of Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 Elections and Title 46 Welfare.
Article 7, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution states: "There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the
purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise." To meet this constitutional requirement, Arizona law
requires that to vote in Arizona you must be a U.S. Citizen. At present, you do not have to provide proof of citizenship when
you register to vote, nor do you need to show identification when you vote. Proposition 200 corrects this concern.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 46 Welfare, identifies entitlement programs and their eligibility requirements. It clearly
states that you must be a citizen of the United States or a legal resident to be eligible for state welfare benefits. The present
system allows state agencies to rely on the "honor" system to determine if this requirement is met. Would you feel comfortable
that tax dollars for welfare benefits are being well managed using little more than the "honor" system in determining
other eligibility requirements such as income levels?
Do not be fooled by the opposition's emotional response to this measure. Proposition 200 will not deny any eligible U.S.
Citizen their right to vote. Public safety issues such as police and fire protection are not welfare benefits and will not be
denied by Proposition 200. Access to library cards and other similar services will not be affected by this measure. If you
believe our laws mean something, then support Proposition 200 and vote YES on November 2nd.
Randy Graf, State Representative, Green Valley
The citizens of Arizona have spoken: they have had enough.
While the politicians in Washington D.C. were ignoring illegal immigration, nearly 200,000 Arizona residents signed their
name on petitions to allow this initiative to be placed on the ballot. Its passage is vital to the security of this state and the
sovereignty of our country.
This initiative will not deny benefits to those who are eligible to receive them. Rather, it prevents those who are not eligible
from continuing to illegally defraud the taxpayers of Arizona.
The Protect Arizona Now initiative protects the integrity of our election and welfare systems by requiring:
Proof of citizenship to register to vote: The U.S. Constitution established more than 200 years ago only allows citizens
to vote. The initiative requires everyone "equally" to prove eligibility. The Arizona Constitution reads as follows Article 7,
Sec. 12 , " There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the
elected franchise. "
Photo I.D. when voting: Photo I.D. is currently required to cash a check, sign a lease, or get a card at a video store.
Governor Napolitano vetoed the bill requiring photo I.D. when voting, stating it was illegal. Yet 11 states already have laws
requiring I.D. when voting. Some laws have been on the books for decades.
Proof of eligibility to receive non-federal mandated public benefits: Requires everyone to provide proof of eligibility.
A study by The Urban Institute, and the University of Arizona estimate fraud costs in the tens of millions of dollars.
Arizona
2004 Ballot Propositions Arguments "For" Proposition 200
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments.
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 2004
45
As former Chief Deputy of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Judge, and Director of the State Motor Vehicle Division I know the
impact of fraud and illegal immigration on families, taxpayers and citizens.
Russell K. Pearce, State Representative, Mesa
Arizona voters should vote yes on Proposition 200 because it is a common sense, moderate measure that merely
enforces the law, ensuring that illegal aliens who are not entitled to vote or obtain certain benefits cannot subvert the law to
access them. Federal immigration law prohibits illegal aliens from using non-essential taxpayer-funded programs, but unfortunately
the law has been poorly enforced, to the detriment of Arizona taxpayers. Proposition 200 is not radical, it does not
stop illegal aliens from entering the state, or "guard the border" which is considered the job of the federal government, and it
does not create any new restrictions on illegal aliens; it is merely an enforcement mechanism of existing law.
Opponents of Proposition 200 claim that it will be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, as California's Proposition
187 was, but Proposition 200 has been drafted carefully to avoid the pitfalls of Proposition 187. Proposition 187 was
ruled unconstitutional by a California U.S. District Court judge because it denied federally mandated benefits to illegal aliens.
Proposition 200 gets around this by specifically stating that federally mandated benefits are exempt, which include emergency
medical services, fire department services, and public schooling. It provides that Arizona state and local governments
must require that applicants for non-federally mandated benefits (non-emergency services such as welfare) produce identification
of their U.S. citizenship to demonstrate eligibility for those benefits. A recent study by the Center of Immigration Studies
found that the total amount of welfare provided by Arizona taxpayers to illegal immigrants is $380 million dollars.
There is also a severability clause at the end of Proposition 200, which provides that if any of its provisions are ruled
invalid by a court, the rest of the Act shall stand. Please vote yes on Proposition 200 to enforce existing law.
Rachel Alexander, Phoenix Attorney and Editor, IntellectualConservative.com, Phoenix
Along with fellow elected officials, small businessmen and women, community activists and tens of thousands of concerned
citizens, we would like to voice our support for the Protect Arizona NOW Initiative.
For too long, our porous borders have allowed millions of immigrants to illegally enter the United States, circumventing
our generous immigration laws and undermining our sovereignty. While the majority journey here to work and pursue the
American dream, an increasing number have enrolled themselves in taxpayer-subsidized health and welfare programs,
draining state resources at an alarming rate.
While no one wants to bar hard-working individuals from services to which they are entitled, it is not fair or lawful for
non-citizens to reap the benefits of citizenship at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers.
This modest measure simply requires state agencies to verifiably abide by regulations already in statute, and prevents
our welfare system from being abused by those who voluntarily chose to disregard the law.
The PAN initiative also strengthens the integrity of our election system by requiring proof of identification to vote.
PAN does not deny state services to anyone who is legally entitled to them. Only those who are currently circumventing
the law will be affected.
By ensuring that our current statutes are enforced, this initiative encourages legal immigration and preserves the rule of
law that makes this country so attractive to those yearning to be free.
We hope that, by enforcing our laws and preserving our resources, the people of this state will join us and Protect Arizona
Now.
Russell Pearce, Representative, Mesa Karen Johnson, Representative, Mesa
Eddie Farnsworth, Representative, Gilbert Andy Biggs, Representative, Gilbert
Chuck Gray, Representative, Mesa Mark Anderson, Senator, Mesa
Thayer Verschoor, Senator, Gilbert
Paid for by "Russell Pearce 2004"
Arizona now spends more than $1 billion annually to provide services and benefits to more than half a million illegal
aliens. These costs continue to rapidly increase. The added tax burden amounts to $700 a year on every Arizona household.
Proposition 200 (Protect Arizona Now) will protect Arizona taxpayers from the ever-escalating costs of providing benefits
to illegal aliens. It will do so in a way that is consistent with federal law, but will not withhold those essential services that
protect the public health and safety of all, including emergency medical assistance, and public K-12 education for children.
Immunization programs and programs that test for communicable diseases would continue to operate without regard to
immigration status.
Under federal law, Arizona state and local governments may not provide non-essential public benefits to illegal aliens.
Proposition 200 will require public agencies in Arizona to verify that persons who receive non-emergency benefits are not
illegal aliens. The verification procedure has been used since 1996 to check eligibility for federal benefits. Proposition 200
would require that the same clear and consistent policy apply to all taxpayer-funded benefits in Arizona.
A state or local benefit, as defined by federal law, includes welfare, disability, retirement payments, public housing
Arizona