On the heels of a victory in federal appeals court, Proposition 200 supporters are planning to return to court over the law, but the roles will be reversed: Instead of being sued, they plan on suing.

Their target? Governor Napolitano.

Randy Pullen, an outspoken supporter of the immigration law and chairman of Yes on Proposition 200, told Arizona Capitol Times on August 10 he plans on filing a suit against Governor Napolitano “within 30 days” to force her to accept voter identification guidelines designed by Secretary of State Jan Brewer.

“We will end up in the very near future filing against the governor,” Mr. Pullen said.

Last month, Mrs. Brewer, Attorney General Terry Goddard and legislative supporters of Proposition 200 reached a “handshake agreement” on the guidelines, but are gathering comments from county recorders to make any needed modifications before submitting a final version to Ms. Napolitano, who must approve them.

The governor has said she will approve whatever identification guidelines Mr. Goddard signs off on.

Mr. Pullen and other supporters say the governor has opposed the voter identification requirements since the beginning and vetoed legislation last session to fully implement that part of Proposition 200, despite U.S. Department of Justice approval.

“It needs to be fully implemented, not just piecemeal,” says Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18. “Proposition 200 is the law, whether [Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Goddard] like it or not. Until they change the law, they need to enforce it. They have been, since Day 1, refusing to enforce it.”

ID Requirement In Compliance

An April 15 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice written by Sheldon Bradshaw, a former deputy assistant attorney general with the Civil Rights Division, said the identification provisions Mrs. Brewer sought in S1118 were in compliance with federal law. and Ms. Napolitano erred in vetoing it.

The bill would have prevented people from casting provisional ballots if they could not produce identification.

Mr. Pullen says the issue needs to be resolved before the city of Phoenix holds elections Sept. 13. If identification is not required of voters at the polls, he said, “They’re basically violating the law that’s been passed by the people.” He said Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Goddard would also be guilty of refusing to enforce the law if that happens.

Opponents of the law say the provisions place the burden on citizens, not those living in Arizona illegally, as was intended.

.No Proof Of Voter Fraud

“I think it’s going to be much more of a headache for citizens than it will be for undocumenteds,” Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-14, said of the voter identification requirements. “There’s never been any proof that there’s been more than a handful of people, maybe, voting that were not entitled to.

“The larger problem is people not voting who are eligible to vote.”

Mr. Brotherton, a lawyer, said it doesn’t make sense that a voter not on the rolls at a precinct can receive a provisional ballot, while one who is on the rolls but does not have proper identification would not be able to vote at all. He said the provisional ballots are all verified the same way absentee ballots are, yet there is no identification requirement to obtain one of those.

“The voters didn’t say, ‘We want to make it more difficult for citizens to vote,’ ” he said. “The stated purpose [of the requirement] was voter fraud, and I think the folks at the ballot voted on voter fraud.”

Mr. Brotherton said the governor is being “quite reasonable” on the issue because it would be a “travesty” if a citizen were denied the right to vote.

Challenge Dismissed

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 9 dismissed a lawsuit filed in federal court in Tucson challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 200. The court said the plaintiffs had not shown they had been injured by implementation of the new law.

“I am pleased with the outcome,” Mr. Goddard said. “The voters made a decision last November, and I promised my office would vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law. This decision allows us to continue implementing Proposition 200.”

Friendly House, a nonprofit social service agency in Phoenix that works with immigrants, filed the suit.

Since Arizona voters adopted Prop. 200 last November, the state has implemented the proof of legal status requirements for applicants requesting public benefits and the requirement for proof of citizenship when registering to vote, the attorney general said.

ID Rules Not Finalized

Mrs. Brewer has not yet submitted new voting identification rules to the attorney general and governor for their approval. If the governor and attorney general approve the rules, they then must be cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice for compliance with the Voting Rights Act before becoming effective. The voting identification rules are the final step to full implementation of the proposition, Mr. Goddard said.

Supporters of the proposition have criticized Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Goddard for trying to limit the scope of programs affected by the law, thereby diluting its effects on illegal immigrants.

Richard Samp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, which has been defending the law in federal court on behalf of Protect Arizona Now, said the next step is making sure the law is implemented and enforced in its entirety.

“We now look forward to the opportunity to sit down with Arizona’s attorney general to discuss how Proposition 200 can begin to be enforced effectively,” he said. “Up to this point, state officials — who unanimously opposed Proposition 200 before it was adopted — have given the law a cramped reading that has limited its effectiveness.”

Mr. Pearce said he and other lawmakers would continue to sponsor legislation designed to fully implement the proposition next session. In the most recent session, Ms. Napolitano vetoed several such bills. —