Alert
Close

Top the Treasure Hunt leaderboard by 5 p.m. Friday to win a $100 gift card! Learn more

Donate

Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

 

Connect with the
Foundation

Email:

foundation@aarp.org

 

Toll-free Nationwide:

888-OUR-AARP

(888-687-2277)

 

Toll-free TTY:

877-434-7598

 

AARP Foundation Tax ID

52-0794300

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

AARP Attorneys Represent Clients Seeking to Strike Down Problematic Voter Registration Law

    

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a state ballot initiative imposing new ID requirements to register to vote violates federal election laws.

Background

For many years, AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys have represented Native American and Latino voters in conjunction with a broad coalition of groups concerned with voting rights in Arizona, including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Before 2004, Arizona voters registering to vote and casting their ballots in person had to meet ID requirements that public officials have embraced in many other states. In 2004, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (“Proposition 200” or “Prop 200”), requiring persons registering to vote to submit documentary proof of citizenship, such as a driver’s license, birth certificate, U.S. passport (or other immigration documents showing citizenship) or Bureau of Indian Affairs card. Prop 200 also required enhanced documentary proof of a voter’s identity if (and whenever) an individual moves from one Arizona county to another. And on voting day, voters must bring photo ID to the polls. People who vote early or absentee are not required to provide such identification.

Such restrictions on voter registration (and in-person voting) would supposedly curb an alleged problem of illegal voting by noncitizens. Yet proponents of Prop 200 could point to no more than 38 instances in which noncitizens sought to vote, many of which involved apparently innocent misunderstandings. By contrast, many thousands of Arizona citizens are lawfully registered and eligible to vote, or fully qualified to register, but do not have the items now required by the law to do so.

In 2005, Prop 200 was challenged in court by three sets of plaintiffs, who argued that it clashes with the U.S. Constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Plaintiffs asked a federal court to strike down the law on the grounds that it imposes an especially difficult obstacle for citizens who are poor, older, physically disabled, residents of retirement and nursing homes, or otherwise geographically isolated; it imposes an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; it effectively creates a “poll tax,” in violation of both the 14th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution; and that by applying different standards and procedures in determining whether individuals within the same county are qualified to vote (since absentee voters are treated differently) and by denying fully qualified voters the right to vote, it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because Prop 200 was likely to disproportionately affect Native American and Latino citizens — who as a group are less likely to have drivers’ licenses, passports, and as a group of lower family incomes that limit ability to obtain or travel to obtain such documents — the lawsuit also alleged that Prop 200 violated the federal Voting Rights Act.

Search Legal Advocacy

Find
Legal Cases

Find the most recent cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases.

Strengthening Law and Policy through
Legal Advocacy

Our legal advocacy initiatives  - conducted by AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) - reflect more than 15 years of work in federal and state courts across the country. Through our efforts, we support the Foundation’s four priority areas: Hunger, Income, Housing and Isolation, and ensure that those 50 and older have a voice in the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.