Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard (right)Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has taken a lot of criticism for opposing the Protect Arizona Now initiative in 2004 before it was approved by voters as Proposition 200, and then for taking a far narrower view of the law than some immigration enforcement activists. But time and again, Goddard and his office have ably defended the voters’ intent in court from attacks offered by immigrant rights advocates who want Prop. 200 thrown out entirely.Goddard won another victory Wednesday as a U.S. district judge again upheld the photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements related to registering to vote and to casting ballots in person, Capitol Media Services is reporting.This is at least third time the attorney general’s office has convinced the federal courts to uphold this portion of Prop. 200 (plus receiving approval from the Justice Department before the law went into effect). As far as I know, Goddard’s office has successfully defeated every challenge to his legal interpretation of the measure. If Goddard really wanted to undercut Prop. 200, it’s likely he would have settled at least some of the lawsuits filed against the state instead of continuing to defend the law in court.Besides various legal challenges intended to block the law, state Republican Party chairman Randy Pullen is still pursuing a separate case in which he argues the state is being too restrictive about what "public benefits" require proof of legal residency under another section of Prop. 200.The people who wrote Prop. 200 would prefer to deny almost any government service or benefit to illegal immigrants. But they knew the federal courts would strike down such law if they tried to apply to grade-school education and emergency health care, and they were worried about obscure places in federal law that might protect other state or local government programs as well. So they tried to make Prop. 200 as broad as possible with a general reference to restricting access to "public benefits," but recognize that its provisions don’t apply to those areas where federal law has intervened. But the language they used is so tortured that even the leading proponents during the 2004 election campaign couldn’t agree on what it really means.Once Prop. 200 became law, Goddard decide to take a narrow interpretation of "public benefits" in an effort to keep the law intact. The problem is Arizona accepts federal funding for so much of what it does (and all of the strings that are attached), that Goddard said only a handful of minor general welfare programs were affected. The state Legislature has had additional areas in the past few years, primarily state-funded child care and college tuition. But Pullen insists the state can, and should, apply Prop. 200 to more government services.Originally, Goddard’s office convinced a Superior Court judge that Pullen didn’t have a good reason to file a lawsuit and to dismiss the case out of hand. But the Arizona Court of Appeals later ruled that Pullen should have the opportunity to make his case before a trial judge.Pullen is actually suing Gov. Janet Napolitano and the state agencies he thinks should be enforcing Prop. 200. But the validity of Goddard’s legal reasoning is at the heart of the dispute. So far, Goddard’s approach has been validated by the courts. On this issue, Goddard appears to be doing the job that voters expect from the attorney general.

Posted in: Immigration |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.