Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote (Pelosi, Clinton)
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.
I hope to hell that Arizona officials defy the feds and tell them to shove their decision and refuse to abide by it. Gutsy people like Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio just might do it, lets hope so.
Arizona is not going to ignore the ruling. AZ has already indicated that it will follow the prescription in the ruling that it get the feds to change the form. They will do this by appealing to the election commission (which BTW, has no members) and then sue the feds in court to do so if that fails. In the meantime, as I have said repeatedly, AZ will use the state form to register most voters. The decision allows the state to ask for proof when the state form is used. 90% of AZ voters are registered with the state form. The Motor Voter law applies when people get a drivers license. In AZ, you have to provide proof of legal status to get a DL, so the situation where an illegal gets a license and then registers to vote is not likely to occur often, if at all.
The press has distorted the ruling and has gotten all of rightdom in a lather. It ONLY APPLIES TO CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL FORM IS USED. It was hardly the "sweeping" ruling you have been lead to believe.
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:
"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
Yes, I agree because there's nothing more I'd like to see than those two behind federal prison bars sharing a green bologna sandwich and a carton of spoiled milk together. Gutsy, but no brains.
Brewer had the courage to openly confront Obama and somehow Sheriff Joe keeps getting re elected over and over again. While I am an admirer of Justice Scalia, who usually makes the right decisions, he blew it this time. Once again the almighty Fed overules self determination and states rights.
Brewer had the courage to openly confront Obama and somehow Sheriff Joe keeps getting re elected over and over again. While I am an admirer of Justice Scalia, who usually makes the right decisions, he blew it this time. Once again the almighty Fed overules self determination and states rights.
Well, IMO Brewer would look much better riding a broom in Northern Wisconsin, and big joe would look great in a striped suit or a Nazi uniform.
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.
How is it unconstitutional for someone to have to prove they are a citizen to vote? How is it unconstitutional for LE to question someone's status in this country when they can't provide a valid ID under lawful contact? The Supreme Court held up the main part of the Arizona immigration bill. Only some minor things were not.
The law that this decision overturned did not simply require "voter ID" but rather proof of U.S. citizenship. Those aren't the same things (e.g. you can get a driver's license, or other ID, without being a citizen).
The law that this decision overturned did not simply require "voter ID" but rather proof of U.S. citizenship. Those aren't the same things (e.g. you can get a driver's license, or other ID, without being a citizen).
I've tried to explain this on the other thread on the topic, but the court did NOT reject the requirement for proving US citizenship. It was a narrow ruling that said AZ cannot require proof WHEN THE FEDERAL MOTOR VOTER FORM is used. Other than that AZ is free to require proof on its local forms. 90% of people who register to vote in AZ do so on local forms. The ruling is any thing but "sweeping" as it was labeled in the national press.
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.