Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote (Obama, Denver)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So republicans are trying to block measures to let illegals vote because they may vote democrat, and democrats are trying to pave the way for illegals to vote democrat? Is that the summation?? How about we all agree that if you aren't a US citizen, you don't get a vote. How can you argue with that logic? Well, apparently you can, but it doesn't mean the argument is logical. If you want to enjoy all of the privileges of being in the country, then cough up proof that you are a citizen.
One of the objections filed against the Arizona law was that, for legal and naturalized citizens who are prohibited by law from photocopying their naturalization papers, from what I understand, were being required to travel long distances to register to vote. I believe that's one of the affects of the law which helped it be overturned. The talk in the discussion about illegals is simply more unfounded/unproven allegations the byproduct of ethnic prejudice by people here on C-D who, in almost every discussion, have race or ethnicity as a base for objections. Voting is much too serious a matter to let the trolls muddy the waters. Arizona gambled and lost and now it should re-craft legislation to accomplish a goal I support - verified citizenship before allowing someone to vote.
So are you saying that before 2004, the state of Arizona didn't verify citizenship before allowing someone to vote?
This is where the argument is lost, most of these laws are very new, there has been voting in this nation for a very long time. Are you saying that voting in the state of Arizona was corrupt before this law was passed?
Were elections held in AZ in the past corrupt because they didn't verify citizenship?
So are you saying that before 2004, the state of Arizona didn't verify citizenship before allowing someone to vote?
This is where the argument is lost, most of these laws are very new, there has been voting in this nation for a very long time. Are you saying that voting in the state of Arizona was corrupt before this law was passed?
Were elections held in AZ in the past corrupt because they didn't verify citizenship?
To the superficial mind, I suppose the Ariz Law would make sense. But what on earth were the 2 Justices that voted in favor of upholding it thinking?
that states have a right to extend and expand the requirements of federal law - something that does seem to apply in many other areas, but not immigration.
They only struck it down because such a law would have to be federal. Maybe it's time to start pressuring our elected officials to enact Voter ID laws.
Why? Is there a huge problem with ineligible people trying to vote?
Well the GAO uncovered some dirt and even reported it back then.
But they've smartened up now and don't report it anymore.
Voting is run on the "honor system".
The Cutting Edge News
In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
that states have a right to extend and expand the requirements of federal law - something that does seem to apply in many other areas, but not immigration.
Voting is not immigration.
It should only be for citizens. Basically the judge approves voter fraud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.