Supreme Court overturns Ariz. voter ID law

 

 

This is such a joke, the most ridiculous claim is at the end of the article:

"Democrats say the measures are intended to make it more difficult for certain voters who tend to vote Democratic to cast ballots."

 

How in the world do Democrats keep using the same excuse when in reality it would only help to prevent voter fraud?

 

If you are a legal citizen and want to vote democratic then you have nothing to worry about, just show proof you are a legal citizen. It's the same crap with the Democrats raising a stinnk when states try to pass a law saying you need to show ID when voting. It's funny how anything to cut back on voter fraud is always said to be illegal by democrats.

How is this not universally seen as ridiculous?

 

I would like to see someone defend this on here and give the case as to why you should not have to prove you are a citizen when you register to vote.

I think the US is its own worst enemy at times.

 

I would like to read the full dissent if anyone can find it?

I think the US is its own worst enemy at times.

 

I would like to read the full dissent if anyone can find it?

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

 

Thank you and wow that stuff is long.

How is this not universally seen as ridiculous?

 

I would like to see someone defend this on here and give the case as to why you should not have to prove you are a citizen when you register to vote.

 

I am not defending it but I read something where naturalized citizens would have to present evidence in person since they apparently are not allowed to copy the paperwork proving their citizenship. I guess that is considered creating a hardship that others do not face. Maybe our legal minds could give us more information. The fact that it was a 7-2 vote seems pretty convincing that the law was shaky.

I am not defending it but I read something where naturalized citizens would have to present evidence in person since they apparently are not allowed to copy the paperwork proving their citizenship. I guess that is considered creating a hardship that others do not face. Maybe our legal minds could give us more information. The fact that it was a 7-2 vote seems pretty convincing that the law was shaky.

Maybe the way the law was written is what was struck down, not the net idea of the law?

I am not defending it but I read something where naturalized citizens would have to present evidence in person since they apparently are not allowed to copy the paperwork proving their citizenship. I guess that is considered creating a hardship that others do not face. Maybe our legal minds could give us more information. The fact that it was a 7-2 vote seems pretty convincing that the law was shaky.

Here is the point i was trying to make.....if what you say is the case and would be considered a hardship, then why do they always have to say the democrats are the ones being subdued, I would bet anything you can actually find someone in the samee situation who is republican.

 

It is only an issue because of all the voter fraud that has been uncovered and it's the ddemocrats who are being found guilty of that and the ID to prove you are who you say you are would only do one thing, and that is cut down on voter fraud.

Dem's apparently don't want to cut down on voter fraud, so what does that tell you?

 

It tells me that if they can't cheat they will do everything they can to keep the fraud avenues open.

Here is the point i was trying to make.....if what you say is the case and would be considered a hardship, then why do they always have to say the democrats are the ones being subdued, I would bet anything you can actually find someone in the samee situation who is republican.

 

It is only an issue because of all the voter fraud that has been uncovered and it's the ddemocrats who are being found guilty of that and the ID to prove you are who you say you are would only do one thing, and that is cut down on voter fraud.

Dem's apparently don't want to cut down on voter fraud, so what does that tell you?

 

It tells me that if they can't cheat they will do everything they can to keep the fraud avenues open.

Even Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, recognized this for what it is: another Republican attempt to suppress the minority vote.

From the ruling - readers digest version attempt:

 

The straightforward textual question here is whether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F), which requires state officials to “reject” a Federal Form unaccompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship, conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that Arizona “accept and use” the Federal Form. If so, the state law, “so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.”

 

...

 

It might mean that a State must accept the Federal Form as a complete and sufficient registration application; or it might mean that the State is merely required to receive the form willingly and use it somehow in its voter registration process. Both readings—“receive willingly” and “accept as sufficient”—are compatible with the plain meaning of the word “accept.”

 

...

 

The assumption that Congress is reluctant to pre-empt does not hold when Congress acts under that constitutional provision, which empowers Congress to “make or alter” state election regulations. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. When Congress legislates with respect to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States.6 Because the power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to pre-empt, the reasonable assumption is that the statutory text accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent.

 

...

 

We conclude that the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use”the Federal Form. Siebold, supra, at 397. If this reading prevails, the Elections Clause requires that Arizona’s rule give way.

 

...

 

Arizona contends, however, that its construction of the phrase “accept and use” is necessary to avoid a conflict between the NVRA and Arizona’s constitutional authority to establish qualifications (such as citizenship) for voting. Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held,but not who may vote in them. (Note - the ruling emphasized 'how' and 'who')

 

...

 

Prescribing voting qualifications, therefore, “forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government” by the Elections Clause, which is “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections.” (Note: the ruling emphasized the underlined words.)

 

...

 

Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.9 If, but for Arizona’s interpretation of the “accept and use” provision, the State would be precluded from obtaining information necessary for enforcement, we would have to determine whether Arizona’s interpretation, though plainly not the best reading, is at least a possible one.

 

...

 

Happily,we are spared that necessity, since the statute provides another means by which Arizona may obtain information needed for enforcement.

Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) of the Act provides that the Federal Form “may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.”

 

...

 

Since, pursuant to the Government’s concession, a State may request that the EAC alter the Federal Form to include information the State deems necessary to determine eligibility, see §1973gg–7(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 55 (UnitedStates), and may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U. S. C. §701–706, no constitutional doubt is raised by giving the “accept and use” provision of the NVRA its fairest reading. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here.

 

...

Arizona did not challenge that agency action (or rather inaction) by seeking APA review in federal court, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 11–12 (Arizona), but we are aware of nothing that prevents Arizona from renewing its request.10 Should the EAC’s inaction persist, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete evidence requirement on the Federal Form.

 

...

 

We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

 

 

 

 

*************************************************

 

So the court basically agreed with Arizona on the key issues. However, since Arizona did not continue to seek a remedy to an obvious hole in the Federal Form to address its (valid) concerns it (and all other states) is (are) stuck accepting the form for 'Federal' elections. To change the form they (and/or other states) have to go back to court and force it be changed.

 

The court 'happily' found this path of to 'fix' the form. Without that path their hand would have been forced since Congress can not dictate WHO votes in elections since that right is not given to Congress though the effect of the requirement to accept the form basically does just that.

 

Kennedy partially dissented and Thomas fully dissented.

Edited June 17, 201313 yr by Bluegrasscard
change see to seek

I am not defending it but I read something where naturalized citizens would have to present evidence in person since they apparently are not allowed to copy the paperwork proving their citizenship. I guess that is considered creating a hardship that others do not face. Maybe our legal minds could give us more information. The fact that it was a 7-2 vote seems pretty convincing that the law was shaky.

 

Without reading any of the details, this is probably a very good assessment.

Even Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, recognized this for what it is: another Republican attempt to suppress the minority vote.

 

Read the ruling. The court had to thread a needle to get to its ruling. The court basically concurred that Arizona is fully within its authority to set voting requirements on WHO may vote and what the requirements are. Congress is not. They 'happily' found a path to avoid declaring the entire NVRA unconstitutional - which would have caused a real political fire-storm.

 

They told Arizona (and other states) what to do to 'fix' this.

I am not defending it but I read something where naturalized citizens would have to present evidence in person since they apparently are not allowed to copy the paperwork proving their citizenship. I guess that is considered creating a hardship that others do not face. Maybe our legal minds could give us more information. The fact that it was a 7-2 vote seems pretty convincing that the law was shaky.

 

The ruling has no real issue with Arizona's requirements - which actually mimic Federal regulations on 'proof of Citizenship'.

 

42 CFR 435.407 - Types of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship. | Title 42 - Public Health | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read the ruling. The court had to thread a needle to get to its ruling. The court basically concurred that Arizona is fully within its authority to set voting requirements on WHO may vote and what the requirements are. Congress is not. They 'happily' found a path to avoid declaring the entire NVRA unconstitutional - which would have caused a real political fire-storm.

 

They told Arizona (and other states) what to do to 'fix' this.

Too bad the high court didn't address real "voter fraud," which is the GOP's disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters every presidential election, most notably in Florida.

 

Arizona's GOP-led voter suppression pales in comparison to Florida.

 

One story says 49,000 people were denied the right to vote in Florida in November '12; the other story says 201,000.

 

And the Republicans are worried about a handful of people who try to vote twice. Sheesh.

 

Long Voting Lines Drove Away At Least 201K Florida Voters, Study Finds | ThinkProgress

 

Central Florida discouraged voters: Researcher: Long lines at polls caused 49,000 not to vote - Orlando Sentinel

Personally, I would like to see federal elections made uniform across the states. I think its embodiment of federalism seems only symbolic and there are too many discrepancies across states. That Florida is still responsible for counting votes is scandalous to me.