• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

U.S. Supreme Court: Prospective Voters Don't Have To Prove

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
WASHINGTON -

The Supreme Court says states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004. Arizona officials say their law is needed to stop non-Americans from voting in elections, while opponents see it as an attack on minorities, immigrants and the elderly.

But the high court agreed with the federal government in the case.

I would be appalled but I used it all already.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Every Natural or Naturalized U.S. Citizen should be upset with this. It certainly reduces some of the incentive for aliens to become a citizen.

It won't be long now!

:roll:
 

Traveler

Well-known member
But this article claims that it's actually a loss for the left. Any thoughts?

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/left-loses-big-in-citizenship-verification-supreme-court-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AccuracyInMedia+%28Accuracy+In+Media%29
 

Mike

Well-known member
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-one-hand-giveth/

This decision, in plain English:

The Constitution divides up the power to determine who will be allowed to vote between state governments and Congress. The states have the basic power to decide who is eligible to vote but, so far as state laws are aimed at who gets to vote for President or Congress, the Constitution gives Congress a back-up power to change or even to override those state laws.

The Supreme Court on Monday made a significant effort to try to sort out how to divide up this power, in the context of deciding whether a state may require would-be voters to show proof that they are U.S. citizens — both to register and to actually vote. That proof requirement was challenged by various advocacy groups, because Congress in 1993 had passed a law designed to expand the ranks of voters, and a federal agency acting under that law has specified a form that voters may use to register.

The argument before the Court was that the federal law must control, because Congress had specified that, in filling out a federal form, all would-be voters had to do was to swear they are U.S. citizens, while Arizona went further and required an actual piece of official paper to prove citizenship. The challengers argued that the two approaches cannot co-exist, so the state proof requirement had to yield.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court agreed that, for now, Arizona’s proof requirement must yield to the federal form’s approach — that is, it is enough to register, using that form, if the would-be voter swears that he satisfies the citizenship requirement.

On the other hand, however, the Court also ruled that Arizona can seek permission from federal officials to impose its proof-of-citizenship requirement. If it fails with that request, it can go to court and argue that it has a constitutional right to make proof of citizenship a binding requirement for all voters.

It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Traveler said:
But this article claims that it's actually a loss for the left. Any thoughts?

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/left-loses-big-in-citizenship-verification-supreme-court-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AccuracyInMedia+%28Accuracy+In+Media%29

From the article:

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.

Sounds simplistic enough though I see a major flaw in the logic of "simply pushing XYZ's state forms while keeping those federal forms in the back rooms gathering dust".

Even in otherwise "conservative" states, most employees at the state level are either unionized or at a miniminum, lean left. As has been demonstrated with the recent IRS scandal, public servants with an agenda can often operate for months, or even years, without any significant leglislative or administrative oversight or notice from the press. Toss in mid to high level state managers with a liberal agenda, and I can easily envision them and their employees doing an end run around the process sighted above.

The outcome? More undocumented democrats registered to vote.
 

Steve

Well-known member
an illegal can vote by swearing... ,.. yet I need six to twelve "points' of residency proof to drive...



6 Point ID verification

In order to obtain licenses and permits at MVC, you must prove your identity by passing 6 Point ID Verification.

6 Point ID Verification was designed to help prevent identity theft by ensuring that licenses are only issued with proper legal documents and verification. This requires you to prepare information prior to visiting an MVC Agency, possibly resulting in special document requests from other state agencies.

it might be easier to live here in this country as an undocumented alien then a citizen..
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
When we moved our house, naturally our address changed. Same town, just a different location. When I finally went to the courthouse to get my DL changed, I couldn't believe all the crap I had to gather up to show that that was where I now lived. Personal mail, bank mail, cable & utility bills, and on and on! The Boss went with me to do this, and the examiner had the sense to not make her.jump through all the hoops that I just did. I did wonder if an illegal would have been held to the same standards, just to get a DL.
 

mrj

Well-known member
The explanations are somewhat encouraging.

But all brings to mind the comment I hear so frequently, possibly a quote from Will Rogers (apologies if that is incorrect): " if we didn't have lawyers, we wouldn't NEED lawyers!"


mrj
 
Top