Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote (wages, Indiana)
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, then, what we have is a conspiracy on a grand scale involving Republicans and Democrats .... who are allowing people not entitled to vote ... to vote?
Don't be so insulting to me, and stop acting so completely moronic, of course there is voter fraud; people are sitting in prison for voter fraud. By the way, where in the hell did I even mention anything about conspiracies? You are just making yourself into a fool.
The only one wearing his little tinfoil hat, is you.
We already know that many various types of voter fraud are going on, and we know we don't catch it all, and probably very little of it is actually caught in the act. We have the dead voting, we have imaginary people registering, we have people voting across state lines, illegal aliens voting, we have people posing as other people, and voting in their place. All Arizon was trying to do, was eliminate one type of voter fraud, but they went about it the wrong way.
Yep, there are a number of "types" of voter fraud that can happen. We don't always catch every instance.
But our elections are observed, by international organizations, by the political parties, and by poll watchers. We have very, very few instances of voter fraud, and those isolated and rare instances involve so few votes that they have virtually no impact on election outcomes.
Whatever Arizona was trying to do, they did, indeed, go about it the wrong way.
What was the vote count in 2000 again? We do need to go after voter fraud, just because the Secretary of State exaggerated the numbers does not mean we should not be aggressively trying to stop voter fraud. Once we toss dozens of people in prison, it may be enough to prevent other types of voter fraud.
We do go after voter fraud. That's why we catch the very few people who actually try to commit voter fraud. And we prosecute voter fraud.
The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state must "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 word "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.
Oh, for crying out loud. Colorado and Florida's process sucked, mmkay? When they were given access to federal records, it turned out that those numbers in the thousands were completely unfounded in reality.
I have posted the links twice already, not doing it again. You seem happy to be uninformed.
Yes they are/will be. The ruling only addresses registration under the Motor Voter Act. If one is registering by state form, not federal, then the requirement of proof is still in effect.
Oh no. What are Arizona conservatives going to do now to keep those pesty Democrats from voting? I got an idea, lets bring back the poll tax. Oh no, the SCOTUS ruled against that too. Damn.
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.
We will never actually know. The Supreme Court halted the recount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
We do need to go after voter fraud, just because the Secretary of State exaggerated the numbers does not mean we should not be aggressively trying to stop voter fraud.
It is idiotic to waste time and effort on aggressively going after grumpkins, snarks and boojums. The "exaggeration" is simply a ploy in support of the deliberate and cynical effort to deny legitimate voters the franchise for purely partisan reasons.
We no more need to aggressively go after voter fraud in the US than we need to aggressively go after jaywalkers in The Antipodes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Once we toss dozens of people in prison, it may be enough to prevent other types of voter fraud.
If it is at the cost of legitimate citizens being denied the right to vote, it would be an obscene travesty.
Yes they are/will be. The ruling only addresses registration under the Motor Voter Act. If one is registering by state form, not federal, then the requirement of proof is still in effect.
How then would that be "taking it a step further?"
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.
