Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote (interview, Mexicans)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The law struck down today was passed by a voter initiative. It was approved by a wide margin. Half of all Hispanics supported it. I can assure that half of all Hispanics in AZ are NOT conservatives or Republicans.

So what? It's still toast.

[Don Draper]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The law struck down today was passed by a voter initiative. It was approved by a wide margin. Half of all Hispanics supported it. I can assure that half of all Hispanics in AZ are NOT conservatives or Republicans.

States can't make laws that violate federal laws, doesn't matter if the majority of the residents support it.

[Chimuelojones]

In a 7-2 decision today, The US Supreme Court ruled against the Arizona Law which requied that a voter Show an ID while filing a Federal Voter application card. The Justices ruled Arizona had no right to interfer with a Federal process.

Again Arizona has been told they can not interfer with the Cosntitutional rights of Americans.

[thecoalman]

This is specific to registrations and/or states under the Voting Rights Act? Hard to tell from the article.

Voter ID has already been ruled constitutional, this applies to asking for ID at the polls:

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

[artisan4]

Rats, how can the GOP suppress Democratic votes there then???

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The law struck down today was passed by a voter initiative. It was approved by a wide margin. Half of all Hispanics supported it. I can assure that half of all Hispanics in AZ are NOT conservatives or Republicans.

It wasn't passed by Hispanics. It was passed by old white tea party people who would like nothing better then to pass a law to round up all Hispanics regardless of citizenship, put them in concentration camps, and gas them. Which they would do in a second, if they thought they could get away with it.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

So, what does Justice Scalia suggest that states do to PREVENT voter fraud?

I'm not one to speak for Scalia, but I suspect his suggestion would be to apply measures that affect all citizens equally, rather than measures that affect naturalized citizens in a manner more onerous than natural-born citizens.

[cremebrulee]

The government wants to spy on us, on our telephone calls and the internet, and yet, the right thing to do would be first, close down the boarders good and tight...that would certainly be a big effective way to start, and then monitor everyone who comes into the U.S. legally, then you wouldn't have to pay so many people to sit at computers and spy on us all day.

I cannot believe Americans are buying this whole fiasco?

[bUU]

I cannot believe that you believe that closing down the borders will have as much impact on confronting terrorism as what you're complaining about. The only rational justifications for "closing down the borders" are economic (read: jobs, wages, costs of the social safety net, etc.), not homeland security-related.

[dnvrsoul]

Originally Posted by Don Draper

States can't make laws that violate federal laws, doesn't matter if the majority of the residents support it.

But Colorado and Washington did when they made pot legal? See you libs can't have it both ways?!