http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110345-7086r.htm
Arizona residents seek vote on illegals
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Arizona residents are trying to put an initiative on next year's ballot to deny illegal immigrants access to state services and voting rights.
The initiative would require new voters to present positive proof of U.S. citizenship before registering, and would require state and local officials to verify U.S. citizenship before allowing someone to use state-funded health care or other state services. Education, police and fire services and other services mandated by federal law would not be affected.
Backers said state law already requires voters and users of state services be citizens, but the law isn't enforced seriously.
"It's an honor system. And the honor system isn't working," said Iris Lynch, the southern Arizona organizer for the petition drive. "So we've gone back and we've said in this initiative that when you're a first-time registrant, that you would need to prove you are a citizen."
Backers must obtain 122,612 signatures of registered voters by next July for the measure to go to voters on the November 2004 ballot.
Kathy McKee, one of the chief organizers, said they haven't begun to count how many signatures have been obtained, but she said the response has been strong.
"We ran out of petitions. We printed 2,000, we thought that would last a while, and we ran out in the first week," she said.
But Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat who opposes the initiative, said it's based on a fallacy.
He said backers haven't produced any studies that show illegals are using the services, and he said the director of the state's Medicaid program, probably the biggest service that would be affected, has publicly said they require recipients to be citizens.
"This is purely some type of theory they pulled out with no proof and no documentation," Mr. Gallardo said. "This is purely an anti-immigrant initiative. There are no other reasons for it."
He said even though backers were aiming at welfare benefits, the initiative is written so broadly that it would apply to everything from public swimming pools to library access.
The measure is somewhat similar to California's Proposition 187, which passed with nearly 60 percent support in 1994, and which denied most government services to illegal immigrants.
A federal judge struck down most of the provisions, arguing that they conflicted with federal law and that denying children public education violated the Constitution. After he was elected in 1998, Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, dropped the pending appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But Arizona state Rep. Randall Graf, a Republican leader in the Legislature who is supporting the initiative, said it only applies to services where federal law lets states determine eligibility.
He said opponents are overblowing things.
"That's the only way they can try to get any traction is to argue on emotional aspects of what the initiative tries to do," he said.
In June, the state Legislature passed a measure requiring stricter proof of identification for new voters to register, but Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed the measure.
Mr. Graf said that's why supporters had to turn to the initiative process.
He and other backers said it is indicative of a wide divide in attitudes between the general public, which wants a crackdown on illegal immigrants, and policy-makers, who seem indifferent.
"What disturbs me most of all about that is, I have a sinking feeling that the citizens of the United States have nobody on their side. It used to be we had the Republicans on our side, and I see that's slipped away," Mrs. Lynch said.
"The people are really disturbed about the citizens' lack of representation. The only alternative is the initiative route. [The governor] cannot veto that."
The League of United Latin American Citizens is opposing the initiative, as does Arizona's Republican delegation to Congress — both senators and six of the state's eight representatives.
The members of Congress said the burden for securing the border is a federal one. They also said because similar proposals in other states have been struck down.