Federal Judge Blocks Arizona's
Proposition 200 Passed by Voters

ithin days of its passage by an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters, Proposition 200 was blocked by a federal judge.

The measure, also known as Protect Arizona Now (PAN), simply requires applicants for public welfare benefits to provide identity documents proving their eligibility. It also requires voters to show identification when voting.

In response to requests from a phalanx of left-wing groups, illegal aliens and immigrant advocates, including the establishment-funded Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), U.S. District Judge David C. Bury in Tucson granted a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the act until legal challenges to it are resolved.

But Judge Bury tipped his hand, using language that reveals he is ideologically biased in favor of overturning the will of the voters.
"It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law, it would have a dramatic chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law," Bury wrote in his order. ("Undocumented aliens" is the phrase America's political elites use when referring to aliens inside the country illegally.) As if laying the groundwork to overturn the act, Bury wrote that "this court is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, even when to do so stands in opposition to popular opinion."

The judge did not cite which part of the Constitution he believes might prevent the display of identification to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits, nor was his assertion that illegal aliens would be deterred by the act from applying for federal benefits to which they are legally entitled, supported by any factual data.

MALDEF complained in legal documents filed in court that Proposition 200 turns state employees into immigration agents and would discourage Arizonans from voting. But supporters of the measure noted that store clerks who check ID before selling alcohol or tobacco products are not considered agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Nor, they say, is there any reason why legally registered voters would be discouraged from casting ballots simply because they have to identify themselves. After all, people legally entitled to drive are not discouraged from driving by having to possess a driver's license.

However, the judges order will provide plenty of time for political elites to devise a rationale to overturn the act.

Supporters of the act find themselves in a politically difficult position because state Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is charged with defending the law in federal court, actively campaigned against it.

As a result, attorneys for PAN filed a motion to intervene in the suit, asking to be allowed to help defend the measure against MALDEF.

Goddard has claimed the act only applies to cash benefits like welfare, but authors of the proposition say the act applies to all public benefits, like attendance at state universities.

PAN officials say state officials can't be trusted to defend the measure effectively. Even Gov. Janet Napolitano and Secertary of State Jan Brewer actively campaigned against the act during the election.