The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer.
People deal with things that keep them up at night in various ways. Some resort to exercise, others prefer to read or binge-watch TV shows, a few opt for less healthy alternatives. Everybody deals with stress in their own way. State legislators, such as Scottsdale Republican Jay Lawrence, have a unique coping mechanism: they introduce legislation to battle their personal demons and persuade fellow legislators to participate in the therapy.
Lawrence apparently lies awake at night dreading Democratic Party violence at polling locations. He told the Arizona Capitol Times, “There has never been a society, save perhaps the Civil War, that was so opposed to each other and so opposed to the thoughts of each other.” Lawrence couldn’t identity one example of polling-place violence in Arizona, but why let facts get in the way of one’s fears?
Lawrence is not concerned about followers of a president who exhorts them to scream “lock her up” and indulges in hateful rhetoric and name-calling. He says people who “are angry at (Trump)” led him to introduce House Bill 2137, which reads: “The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall provide for a law enforcement officer to be posted at or inside each polling place or other voting location for the primary and general elections.”
Putting aside the complication that Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson does not have the authority to deploy sheriff’s deputies or any other police personnel, Lawrence doesn’t suggest a way to pay for it.
In Pima County, 222 polling stations served 240 precincts in 2018. The entry level pay for Pima County sheriff’s deputies is $25.50 an hour, for Tucson city police officers it’s $22.66. Take the average — $24.08 — and multiply it by 13 hours a day for each polling location. That comes to $69,494.88. Since many of the law enforcement personnel would earn more than entry level, the actual sum would undoubtedly be higher. If the officers and deputies were working overtime — which is likely — it would increase substantially.
But there is another cost. “The presence of law enforcement officials or poll watchers wearing official-seeming clothing in polling places for ballot security operations,” stated the Brennan Center for Justice in 2016, “has been found to intimidate voters.” This echoes a judicial finding in Democratic Nat. Comm. v. Republican Nat. Committee (U.S. District Court for New Jersey, 2009) that “Some voters — especially in minority districts where the legacy of racism and history of clashes between the population and authorities has given rise to a suspicion of police and other officials — may choose to refrain from voting ...” Needless to say, such “minority districts” tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic.
Lawrence’s bill would impose an unwanted financial and personnel burden and risk discouraging qualified voters from casting their ballot. It also leaves cities and counties in the dark about how to pay for it. Why can’t just they ignore it?
Cities and counties defy state law at their peril. A.R.S. § 41-194 penalizes them for it by denying state financial aid. All it takes is one meddling legislator to compel cities and counties to bend to the will of the Legislature, no matter the burden. This is why Tucson can’t purchase and destroy firearms and Bisbee can’t get rid of plastic bags. In both cases, legislators overrode local control. If the bill passes, we’re probably stuck with it.
That seems like a lot of trouble to address Lawrence’s sleeplessness. Wouldn’t Sominex be cheaper?
