One Document+Two Purposes=Problem: Newby on Naturalization Certificates as Proof of Citizenship

[Image courtesy of ElectionDiary]

The recent court opinion in Kobach v. EAC has put proof-of-citizenship for voter registration back on the front pages, with questions about whether Kansas and Arizona’s laws could become a bellwether for other states and thus yet another partisan flashpoint in 2014 and beyond.

But in Kansas, there is still some work to do with regard to implementation of proof-of-citizenship. I’ve already written about the large numbers of Kansans who are already “in suspense” because of uncertainty the requirement, but my friend Brian Newby of Johnson County has discovered a new wrinkle. Here’s what he said in his most recent ElectionDiary:

The Johnson County League of Women Voters has a long history of attending new citizenship naturalization ceremonies and registering these new citizens to vote …

Problem was, with the new citizenship verification requirements that went into effect in 2013, these new registrations needed accompanying copies of the naturalization certificate.

The League didn’t know this, thinking the naturalization number was sufficient. So, in trying to do a good thing, each month the local League chapter was adding to our list of voters in incomplete registration status.

We send each voter a letter to follow-up, and anecdotally this group of voters is more responsive than those typically on the list, but there had to be a better way, we thought.

We met with the League and offered to provide them with an iPad that they could use to photograph the naturalization forms and bring back to us with the registrations.

That’s a typically Newbian (if that isn’t a word I’m coining it) response – identify the issue, implement a solution and serve the voter. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough:

Friday, … the League’s woman on the street was thwarted by an immigration official, who forbid her from photographing the naturalization forms.

She was very upset as she dropped off the unused iPad and about 75 registrations. She was so upset that she said she would follow up with me this coming week, wanting to chill some before talking about it.

The problem is that federal law forbids the copying of the naturalization certificate (presumably to discourage forgeries) – though it appears in practice that exceptions are allowed when a copy is necessary for another official purpose:

Kansas law specifically allows for electronic capture and transmission of citizenship verification and further requires that election officials protect the integrity of the documents. We check the iPad out, upload the images when it is returned, and wipe it before sending it back out.

If this is as simple as an immigration official needing to see a duly authorized election official taking the photos, we’ll start sending someone. It feels like, at this point, that someone overstepped. Maybe we’ll find out we were the over-steppers, but I don’t think we were.

The argument that was given was that it was illegal to photograph the document. In actuality, the certificates have various wording, but often say that it is illegal to copy or print the document without lawful authority.

You can see for yourself by doing an Internet Search for “naturalization certificate” images and seeing how well enforced this law is.

The Kansas Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act provides our office lawful authority–at least state authority–to make copies for the purpose of attaching them to voters’ registrations.

Regardless, I’m not sure any certificates say that immigration officials will intervene and prevent the photographing, copying, or printing.

The bottom line is this: Kansas law requires proof of citizenship. A naturalization certificate is (in my opinion) a particularly good piece of proof. And yet, for whatever reason, voters are not being allowed to use that proof to prove citizenship.

There are two key things going on here:

First, once again election officials are being asked to use a government document for purposes for which it may not have been designed. This is happening more and more frequently with even the most common items like drivers’ licenses, which often don’t bear the same name as a voter’s registration record. How we harmonize those requirements is a huge challenge and is something that we need to be discussing before they go into effect.

Second, it would appear that the federal government has a lack of coordination problem. Whether or not you like proof-of-citizenship, the fact that some parts of the federal government are fighting it in the courts (ostensibly to protect voters) while at least some INS officials are hurting voters by interfering with attempts to comply simply doesn’t make sense. Based on comments on social media after Brian’s post, it would appear that officials in other jurisdictions, INCLUDING IN KANSAS(!), are already making copies as part of the registration process with no apparent problems.

I know proof-of-citizenship is controversial. But whether or not you like it, I hope you’ll agree that prospective voters who have the necessary documentation to meet those requirements should be allowed to use it.

Thanks as always to Brian for sharing this story – and tell the volunteer from the League that I share her frustration! Brian says he’ll follow up – stay tuned …