Prop. 309's biggest problem: Voter Protection Act

The details of voting procedures shouldn't be beyond the ability of the legislature to reform, repair, or refine.

Proposition 309 would increase voter identification requirements for mail and in-person voting. 

I’m open to improving voter identification requirements. I don’t think evidence of fraud is a necessary prerequisite to making it more difficult to commit. And I don’t think proposals to enhance ballot security should be automatically dismissed as an attempt at voter suppression. With respect to the specific changes in Prop. 309, the voter suppression charge is hyperbole, an attempt to bypass an analysis of its merits rather than constructively engage in a critique of them.

While there is every reason to be confident in the integrity of elections in Arizona, there’s no reason to believe that existing systems are the final word on the balance between ballot access and security. And that’s the real problem with Prop. 309: Because it would be within the ambit of the Voter Protection Act, it would become pretty close to the final word on that balance. And there is no more reason to believe that it can’t be improved upon than there is for the current system.

For mail ballots, Prop. 309 would retain the current signature verification requirement. It would add to it an affidavit containing the voter’s birth date and one of the following: the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number, driver license number, or voting registration number. 

For in-person voting, a photo ID would be required. Currently, the voter ID requirement can be satisfied with two other documents linking the voter to the address on the voting file, such as a utility bill or tax assessment. The Department of Transportation would be required to issue free photo IDs to those saying that they intend to use them for voting.

The current signature verification process for mail ballots has worked in making voting more convenient while producing fair and accurate election outcomes. However, there is a degree of subjectivity involved. Transitioning to something more objective – such as date of birth, Social Security digits, driver license number, or voting registration number – could be less time-consuming and more accurate.

But if something more objective is available, is there still the need for the signature verification step? Prop. 309 keeps the signature verification requirement and adds the checks of the objective info also provided.

Under Prop. 309, there would be three checks in the verification process, rather than the current one. The signature would still have to be verified. Then the birth date. And finally the identifying number. 

The county recorders estimate that Prop. 309 would quadruple the time required to verify mail ballots. That seems like an exaggeration. But there’s no question that it will increase the time spent on verification, when it certainly seems possible that transitioning to an objective factor, done differently, could streamline and reduce verification times. 

Given the number of mail ballots turned in on election day, it’s fair to say that Prop. 309, by piling new verification requirements on top of the existing one, will likely delay results in close elections, already a source of voter frustration and the thread of conspiracy spinners. 

Is Prop. 309’s suite of identifying numbers the optimal approach to transitioning to a more objective verification process? Date of birth, Social Security digits, and driver license number are highly personal bits of information. Voters may be squeamish about associating them with their ballot. 

No one knows their voter registration number. But it is impersonal and easily obtained by the voter. If it were required for mail ballots, it would become one of those numbers people keep in an accessible location.

In short, there ought to be a way to transition to a more objective verification process that shortens rather than lengthens it. And Prop. 309’s suite of identification numbers is probably not the optimal approach.

However, since Prop. 309 would introduce some additional objectivity to the verification process, doesn’t that make it better than the status quo and thus worth voting for?

This is where we run into the voter protection problem. In 1998, after the legislature neutered a voter-approved medical marijuana initiative, voters approved a constitutional amendment sharply limiting the ability of the legislature to fiddle with voter-approved laws. It requires a three-fourths vote of both chambers to do so, and any changes have to further the purpose of the voter-approved law.

As a practical matter, that means that if Prop. 309 has unintended consequences, such as delaying election results, or could be improved upon, such as by eliminating the signature verification step or focusing on a single objective identification number, the legislature wouldn’t be able to address that. It would require another vote of the electorate.

Prop. 309 was referred by Republicans in the legislature. They could have simply enacted these changes directly. Instead, fearing a retreat from voter ID requirements if Democrats were to gain control, they wanted the requirements to be voter protected. 

Ironically, that provides the most compelling argument against approving Prop. 309, even if you think voter ID requirements can and should be enhanced. The details of voting procedures shouldn’t be beyond the ability of the legislature to reform, repair, or refine, as experience and evolving capabilities suggest. 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.