Log in

Arizona appeals court says ballot harvesting law is illegal

Posted 1/26/20

PHOENIX — Arizona’s law making it a crime to return someone else’s early ballot is illegal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

In a divided decision, the majority …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.

Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

Arizona appeals court says ballot harvesting law is illegal


PHOENIX — Arizona’s law making it a crime to return someone else’s early ballot is illegal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

In a divided decision, the majority concluded that the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted the restriction in 2016 with the goal of suppressing minority votes. And Justice William Fletcher, writing for the majority, said the record shows that HB 2023 had that effect.

The court also voided a separate provision which says that the entire ballot is discarded if someone votes in the wrong precinct on election day. The judges said the state should count the votes that would have been legal had the person been at the right place, such as for a statewide office like governor.

Monday’s ruling drew an angry reaction from Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who pushed the legislation through the process.

“Bull hockey,” she said when informed of the ruling. “They’re just a liberal court.”

And Ugenti-Rita said it was never her motivation to suppress minority votes — votes that are more likely to go to Democrats.

She also dismissed as irrelevant the court’s findings that there was no real evidence that allowing individuals to collect the ballots of others ever resulted in fraud.

“Do I need a bunch of people to fall off a balcony before I’m like, ‘You know what’s a good idea? We should probably put up a railing,’ ‘’ Ugenti-Rita said. “Or does logic and common-sense prevail (and) tells me it’s not good practice?”

She was not alone. Four of the 11 justices that heard the case filed separate dissents saying they found nothing illegal about the policies.

Ugenti-Rita is now hoping for U.S. Supreme Court review. But Monday’s ruling leaves unclear whether the state cam continue to enforce the law while any appeal goes forward.

What’s behind “ballot harvesting” is the fact that most Arizonans receive early ballots. They can be filled out and mailed back or delivered to polling places on election day.

But the law requires mailed ballots to be delivered by election day. So anything dropped in a mailbox within a week or so may not get counted.

Political and civic groups had for years gone into neighborhoods, asking people if they have returned their ballots and, if not, offering to take it to polling places on their behalf.

The law does have exceptions for family members, those living in the same household, and caregivers for those in nursing homes and similar facilities.

Republicans argued that presents too many opportunities for mischief, though during debate they could not cite a single confirmed incident where a ballot was altered or did not get delivered. In fact, Sen. J.D. Mesnard, then a Republican members of the House from Chandler, argued it’s irrelevant whether there is fraud or not.

“What is indisputable is that many people believe it’s happening,” he said at the time. “And I think that matters.”

After the law was enacted it was challenged by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Fletcher, in writing for the majority, said the change in law cannot be examined solely in a vacuum.

“For over a century, Arizona has repeatedly targeted its American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens, limiting or eliminating their ability to vote and to participate in the political process,” he said.

Fletcher cited extensive testimony at trial about the number of ballots collected and turned in by others.

More significant, he said the record from the trial shows that prior to the 2016 law minorities were more likely than non-minorities to get someone else to turn in their ballots.

“The district court found that, in contrast, the Republican Party has not significantly engaged in ballot collection as a Get Out the Vote strategy,” Fletcher wrote.

“The base of the Republican Party in Arizona is white,” he continued. “Individuals who engaged in ballot collection in past elections observed that voters in predominantly white areas were not as interested in ballot-collection services.”

And there are other factors.

For example, Fletcher wrote, white registered voters have home mail services at a rate over 350 percent higher than their American Indian counterparts.

Ugenti-Rita sniffed at any suggestion that minorities who seek an early ballot have a harder time voting them than others.

“How could it be inconvenient to return your ballot when you’ve elected to receive it that way?” she asked. “That literally defies logic.”

But Fletcher, in his ruling, did not see it that way.

“In urban areas of heavily Hispanic counties, many apartment buildings lack outgoing mail services,” he wrote, meaning they can get the blank ballot without leaving the building but would have to go somewhere else to return it.

And Fletcher said there was some testimony that income and outgoing mail often go missing, saying that “especially in low-income communities, frequent mail theft had led to distrust in the mail service.”

“The adverse impact on minority communities is substantial,” the judge wrote. “Without access to reliable and secure mail services and without reliable transportation, many minority voters prefer instead to give their ballots to a volunteer.”

The majority judges also found something else to buttress their findings that the legislation was racially motivated.

Fletcher cited an early version of the measure introduced in 2011 by then-Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. And he pointed out that the trial judge specifically found that Shooter was “in part motivated by a desire to eliminate what had become an effective Democratic GOTV strategy.”

The trial judge then noted that Shooter had won his 2010 election with just 53 percent of the vote — receiving 83 percent of the non-minority vote but only 20 percent of the Hispanic vote.

The GOP-controlled Legislature eventually adopted the current law in 2016. But Fletcher said that, in the opinion of the trial judge, nothing had really changed.

“Republican legislators were motivated by the unfounded and often far-fetched allegations of ballot collect fraud made by former Sen. Shooter,” Fletcher said.

Ugenti-Rita said there is a record of the problems elsewhere caused by ballot harvesting. In North Carolina there was an investigation launched amid allegations that Republicans there illegally collected the ballots of minority voters and then purposely failed to turn them in.

But Fletcher pointed out that what had occurred there would have been illegal even under pre-2016 Arizona laws which already made it a crime to tamper with or refuse to deliver an early ballot.

“Criminalization of the collection of another person’s ballot was enacted with discriminatory intent,” Fletcher wrote, a direct violation of not just the U.S. Constitution but also the Voting Rights Act. And he said that any distrust of third-party ballot collection that currently exists is “`because of the fraudulent campaign mounted by proponents of HB 2023.”

“To the degree that there has been any fraud, it has been the false and race-based claims of the proponents of HB 2023,” the judge said. “It would be perverse if those proponents, who used false statements and race-based innuendo to create distrust, could now use that very distrust to further their aims in this litigation.”

On the issue of out-of-precinct voting, Fletcher wrote that there are multiple reasons people show up at the wrong location. One, he said, involves frequent changes in polling locations.

In Maricopa County, for example, at least 43 percent of polling locations changed between 2006 and 2008, with 40 percent changing between 2010 and 2012. And the judge said that there were fewer changes in where white people vote.

Fletcher also said that Arizona has a high percentage of renters which leads to a high percent of people changing address who then have to find a new polling place, even if they moved only a short distance away. And he said there are findings that people voting at the wrong location is more frequent in districts populated with renters, groups he said, which “are disproportionately composed of minorities.”

“We are pleased that the latest effort to suppress the voices of voters by Republicans has failed,” said Herschel Fink, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party in a prepared statement. “This takes an undue burden off of working families and people of color, making it easier for them to exercise their right to vote.”