Ballot Harvesting Concerns Should Be Bipartisan

A member of Citizens For A Better Arizona is captured on a surveillance camera dropping off harvested ballots in 2014.

PHOENIX – Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s office is seeking a stay in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals involving its recent decision regarding ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting. Brnovich is requesting the stay while his office seeks Supreme Court review.

It is not clear why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would strike down this law now. The timing is very suspect because we are gearing up for the very important  2020 elections. Even more troubling is the fact that this law would be challenged at all, in light of the fact that it was upheld by the US Supreme Court back in 2016.

What is clear is that the points cited in the majority opinion are totally bogus.

The first bogus argument is that the original law enacted via HB2023 in 2016 is discriminatory and racist because it makes it illegal for minority members to obtain assistance from “civic groups” in delivering their ballots to the polls. The only discriminatory portion of this argument is the notion that Hispanics and other so called minorities are too inept or too lazy to vote their ballots, seal them in the provided envelopes, sign the envelopes and take them to their mail boxes for the postman to pick up.

In August 2015, CASE (Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy) used youngsters to harvest ballots in Arizona heat.

Another bogus argument is that minority folks are affected by the rule that hand delivered mail in ballots must be delivered by 7:00 on election day. Again, is the majority of the 9th Circuit alleging that procrastination is a malady that affects only Hispanics and other minorities? Actually, mail in ballots should not be allowed to be hand delivered at all. What is the point of obtaining a mail in ballot if it not going to be mailed in? But if mail in ballots are allowed to be hand delivered, there has to be a deadline that applies to everyone. How is that discriminatory?

A third bogus argument is that the Republican majority acted with racial intent when they passed HB2023. It is not clear where the members of the 9th circuit majority obtained their psychiatry degrees, but it is clear that they did not psychoanalyze any of the majority members of the 2016 Arizona legislature to determine their motivations. Therefore, there is no way that they could divine the state of mind of those who voted in favor of the bill.

This should not be a partisan issue, but Democrat secretary of state Katie Hobbs is refusing to assist AG Brnovich in his efforts, indicating that she voted against HB2023 when she was a member of the legislature. So, a state official who is supposed to represent the whole state is neglecting her duties in a partisan manner. Perhaps the psychiatry experts at the 9th Circuit should examine Ms. Hobbs to determine her motivations.

Related articles:

McCain’s Camp Ballot Harvesting Raises Questions

Arizona primary ballot box stuffing caught on tape

Questions raised about Arizona ballot harvesting from nursing homes

Parraz ballot harvesting defense leads to resurfacing of old charges


Find us on Facebook or Twitter to comment on this article!