Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote (healthcare, racism)
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.
They don't link to it, though. I know I should be more trusting of my fellow man, but when an opinion piece cites one county in an 8 year old study without providing the context, well... I do get the feeling that they may have chosen an outlier.
A simple google search for 2005 GAO study on illegals registered to vote turned it up as the first hit.
Now why did they do this study ? Because several states raised concerns about their registered voter base and wanted to be able to verify voter registration lists for citizenship.
And rather than demand the proof from the voters themselves, states wanted the Fed to verify the lists.
But the Fed agencies deny requests.
So nothing really got accomplished did it ?
If I were residing in any country illegally, I would be more likely to want to continue to reside under the radar than risk discovery by attempting to vote in any election.
If I were residing in any country illegally, I would be more likely to want to continue to reside under the radar than risk discovery by attempting to vote in any election.
But that's because you fear deportation.
If you have no fear and the government is bending the laws for you and fighting to let you stay then what fear do you have ?
You have a government that acknowledges your presence and guarantees you rights.
I don't see why there would be fear.
What you wrote was incorrect. Not every citizen of the United States has a birth certificate to show as proof of citizenship. You're simply wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Gong. The studies have shown there is no such method that equalizes the burden.
And Americans are too stupid to actually invent one?
I didn't think so. The reality is that it isn't worth the money to put such a thing into place, because (a) the Democrats don't feel it is necessary, and (b) the Republicans fear it would simply interfere with their ability to discriminate against naturalized citizens.
The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".
The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."
The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.
I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.
In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.
Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.
Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.
And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free.
I read the Executive Summary and skimmed the rest of the document, but I have some issues on the reasoning provided.
(1) That list of states in the Executive Summary is erroneous. For example, RI has implemented a photo ID law that goes into effect in 2014, same as Alabama. Why aren't they listed in the same list as Alabama? Second, states like NH and MI have photo ID laws in place and yet are not listed. Finally, WI's law was stricken down in March 2012 and yet the state is still listed in the 10 'unprecedented' states (report updated Jul 2012).
(2) Why should the state have to provide state-funded transportation to satisfy travel to a state office? Does a state have to provide public transit to go to a local DMV for a driver's license? To an office to obtain a zoning permit for your property? To a state agency to get a permit for your gun? This logic seems flawed.
(3) Why does availability of an ID office open on Saturday have to do with anything? Is election day on Saturday? Which state offices are open on Saturday?
Personally, I believe even if all of these issues in the reports were fixed, people from the Brennan Center and like-minded think tanks would still oppose voter ID laws.
And depressingly, I find that the data is in fact cited for maximum outrage. The report has estimates from 4 courts as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAO report
In the other four district courts:
• a federal jury administrator in one U.S. district court estimated that 1 to
3 percent of the people out of a jury pool of 30,000 over 2 years (about
300 to 900 people) said they were not U.S. citizens;
• a federal jury administrator in a second U.S. district court estimated
that less than 1 percent of the people out of a jury pool of 35,000 names
each month (less than 350 people) said they were not U.S. citizens;
• a federal jury administrator in a third U.S. district court estimated that
about 150 people out of a jury pool of 95,000 names over 2 years said
they were not U.S. citizens; and
• a federal jury administrator in a fourth U.S. district court estimated that
annually about 5 people typically claimed non-citizenship in a jury pool
of about 50,000 individuals.
One of these results is not like the others, and guess which one gets cited?
The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.
I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed (like the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility), then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.
Scalia blew it,
Scalia blew it? This isn't just 1 decision upholding the 1993 NVRA as constitutional. There have been numerous court cases and in every case the court has ruled in favor of the NVRA over the states.
"After the NVRA became effective, several states failed to take the steps necessary to comply with the law; several of them also challenged the constitutionality of the Act. Beginning within a month of the Act's effective date, the Department responded by filling a series of lawsuits requiring these states to comply with the Act's procedures as well as defending its constitutionality.
Those states involved in the first round of cases included California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. The Department's litigation addressed each state's refusal, often on constitutional grounds, to implement provisions of the Act. As a result of these cases and actions filed by private individuals, the Act's constitutionality was established and states were ordered to comply with the Act's requirements."
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.
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.
