(CA) Press Enterprise: Mexico v. Arizona?

[question everything]

Mexico v. Arizona?

09:38 PM PST on Sunday, January 30, 2005

Voters never seem to get the last word. When a controversial ballot measure wins voter approval, it's almost a given that it will be challenged in court. But since when does a foreign country have a say in what a state's voters decide at the polls?

Mexican officials threatened on Thursday to go to an international human rights tribunal if U.S. courts don't invalidate Arizona's Prop. 200. The measure -- which requires proof of legal residency when applying for certain state benefits, and proof of citizenship when registering to vote -- passed in November with 56 percent of the vote.

Good luck with that challenge. The way a state sets its voting rules and distributes its resources is hardly an international human rights issue.

Besides, the United States never signed on to either the international criminal court treaty or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, so it's not bound by their rulings. The Mexican government didn't say which court it would complain to, in any case. It's not even clear that Mexico would have any standing to sue in Arizona.

(snip)

It's worth noting, too, that Prop. 200 is no rehash of California's misguided Prop. 187, which would have denied education and health care to illegal immigrants. While a federal court invalidated Prop. 187 a decade ago, so far Arizona's measure has survived legal scrutiny. We expect it will survive international scrutiny, as well.

Online at: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_op_31_ed_arizona200_2.ede0.html

[Warpy]

1. Some things fall under Chapter 11 of NAFTA

and they can be truly bizarre. Don't count this challenge out until it grinds its way though the courts.

The Mexican nationals must've found one provision especially onerous. I sincerely doubt they wanted to vote in our elections.