The Arizona Supreme Court permitted nearly 98,000 voters whose citizenship status had not been confirmed to participate in upcoming state and local elections. This decision followed the discovery of a database error that had inaccurately classified these voters as eligible to cast full ballots for the past two decades.
The disagreement over the voters’ status arose between Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Stephen Richer, the Republican recorder for Maricopa County.Richer sought the court’s intervention, claiming Fontes had disregarded state law by advising that these voters be allowed to vote.
Arizona stands out as a state that requires proof of citizenship for participation in local and state elections. Voters may provide a driver’s licence or tribal ID number, or submit copies of a birth certificate, passport, or naturalisation documents. However, a coding error in the system mistakenly categorised nearly 98,000 voters—roughly 2.5% of all registered voters—who obtained their licences before October 1996 as eligible for full ballots.
Fontes argued that preventing these voters, who believed they had met all requirements, from voting would violate their rights to equal protection and due process. The court sided with Fontes, stating that county officials lacked the authority to alter the voters’ status, as they had registered under the penalty of law, affirming their citizenship. The justices highlighted that the voters were not responsible for the database error and noted the limited time remaining before the general election on November 5.
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer expressed concern over disenfranchising a large number of voters, saying, “We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests.”
While this error would not affect the presidential race, it could have significant implications for closely contested legislative seats, where Republicans hold a narrow majority. Additionally, it may influence upcoming ballot measures regarding issues such as abortion rights and penalties for noncitizens entering Arizona.
In a post on the social platform X, Richer expressed gratitude to the court for its swift review of the case and to Fontes for his collaboration in addressing the issue.
Key issues in Arizona
Voters in Arizona will confront critical ballot measures on abortion and immigration in the upcoming election, as both issues gain prominence in this battleground state. Republicans are seeking to capitalise on heightened concerns about illegal border crossings while expecting increased turnout from those advocating for abortion rights. The abortion initiative, backed by a strong citizen-led campaign, has attracted significant financial support, while the GOP’s immigration measure appears to be gaining momentum without substantial funding.
Abortion has become a particularly urgent issue following the revival and quick repeal of an 1864 law that banned nearly all abortions. Conversely, immigration remains a top concern, with proposals aimed at empowering local law enforcement to address illegal crossings. Critics argue that this could harm Arizona’s reputation and divert resources from essential public services.
The abortion measure, aiming to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution, is predicted to mobilise young and first-time voters. With both issues polarising the electorate, the stakes are high for both parties as they prepare for the November election.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66eeac82244947dd82a3efc8ccfd27c6&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimesofindia.indiatimes.com%2Fworld%2Fus%2Fus-elections-why-nearly-98000-voters-in-arizona-can-still-vote-despite-unconfirmed-citizenship%2Farticleshow%2F113541064.cms&c=16247095029987699067&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-09-20 17:12:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
