A bit on Arizona’s 2008 Elections

This weekend, I traveled to Arizona, my hometown. Coming from a swing state, Nevada, and being used to Barack’s presence there, I was very curious to compare how differently I would experience the Presidential campaign in Senator’s McCain’s hometown, where he has enjoyed a comfortable lead throughout the campaign. I was shocked to learn the moment I arrived that suddenly a recent poll conducted by Arizona State University showed the race about even. I also began to hear stories about the voting experiences of Arizonans during early vote: lines of over six hours in some places, with voters being told it could take more than four hours to vote and staying; and with the unusual diversity in lines of Black and first-time Latino voters. Perhaps that could explain the sudden closing in gap of the race in Senator McCain’s hometown. At least for this weekend, Nevada and Arizona were eerily similar in terms of why a traditionally red state might actually go blue. The revolutionary change of what could turn out to be the largest voting turn out among people of color is also happening in Arizona.

For Arizona’s immigrants, the importance of this election will also be at the local level. For one, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the toughest law enforcement sheriff in the nation against immigrants, is up for re-election. For the 16 years that he has been in office, Arpaio has enjoyed high public-approval (at around 70 percent), although those numbers have also started to slip. A Rocky Mountain Poll conducted in July suggested that Arpaio’s popularity had dropped ten percentage points, to 54 percent in the past 16 months. Arpaio is confident about re-election, despite facing significant bad publicity regarding his overreach when conducting street sweeps and raids against immigrants and issues related to his treatment of inmates in Arpaio’s jails, which has cost Arizona taxpayers more than $30 million in settlements and payouts.

As well, an immigration local ordinance is part of the ballot propositions in Arizona. In recent years, Arizona’s local elections have included (and easily passed several anti-immigrant ordinances), including one of the toughest employer sanctions law in the country. This year there is only one immigration-related proposition, Proposition  202, which pertains also to employers sanctions, and, in fact, is supposed to amend the current state law which has survived court challenges. Known by its supporters as the Arizona Stop Illegal Hiring Act, the proposition still seeks to penalize employers for the hiring of undocumented workers, but it would require actual knowledge of the immigrant’s unauthorized status to meet the definition of “knowingly employ[ing] an unauthorized alien.” It would also require that complainants with the Attorney General against employers for the hiring to undocumented workers must write and sign their complaints, which responds to concerns over racially-charged anonymous tips, which have been disastrous for workers when combined with Arpaio’s tough enforcement practices. The proposition also seeks to delay the use of E-verify until December 31, 2008, and it would make it a Class 4 felony to take the identity of another person or entity or to knowingly accept the identity of another person. It does not appear from the language of this provision in the proposed proposition that the identity crime would require knowledge, which is precisely the issue the US Supreme Court is now deciding with regard to the equivalent federal identity fraud legislation. [Flores-Figueroa v. US, cert. granted, Oct. 20, 2008, http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-108.htm].

ra