Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Registration Citizenship Requirement

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier. The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law. Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court's majority. The court was considering the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004. Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. "Today's decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law," said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200. Source.

Comments

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Isn't there another case coming up that threatens to neuter the federal law? So we may have to see how it all comes out in the wash.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think so, but I can't recall which case it is. Regardless, I'm not convinced the majority was correct on this at all, as the dissent pretty much got the better result in that the federal law should conform to Article 1 Section 2, which it currently does not.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But, man, you got Scalia (Mr Originalist himself) writing for the unusually wide majority. That should tell you something, no? Though, I suspect that this may be because he knows they are ready to gut the federal law, so that this is kind of a joke.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of the latter until you said it, and it certainly makes his opinion more forgivable. Scalia's opinion, at least on the surface, appears to be one more of the Order of Things rather than the law itself - Arizona should have gone to the government for an exemption or something first before going to the courts.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

forgive me, im not an american, or a constutinal scholar, nor have i read the disent.

however, i googled it, and it seems to be to do the composition of the house of reps. can you clarrify?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Our legislative branch, Congress, has two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. We also have only two political parties who pretty much hate each other. The Senate is dominated by the Democrats, but the House is dominated by the Republicans. Because our system requires proposed laws to be approved by a majority vote of both parts of Congress, proposed laws tend to undergo a lot of changes to make everyone happy. Increasingly, though, the Republicans will not agree to any meaningful compromises and so legislation ends up being discarded altogether.

The Arizona law has more to do with Constitutional rights, I think. That is a different issue.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

what i ment was, jeff said "the desent got this right, it should confir to art 1, section 2 of the consituion". i fail, for the reson that you state, its a right thing, not a structer of goverment thing, to see what that has to do with the law in question, and i was hopping for clarifction on that note.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I apologize. I thought it was a more general question.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

its ok. thanks for your help anyway. :)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I understand the Arizona voter-approval law was pretty crass and I'm glad the Supreme Court told the state to get nicked... But really, could the cartoonist think about the national stereotyping that they're using?

[trog.livejournal.com]

The idea that only citizens should be allowed to vote is absurd.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Yawn. Even you can do better than this, I think.

[trog.livejournal.com]

That's what this is about, entirely: maximizing the Democrat constituency. Please don't pretend it's anything else.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

With non-citizens? Sure, that makes sense. No doubt making a big public show about laws like this and trying to get thousands and thousands of illegal aliens' votes to pass without any alarm bells is much easier and more sensical a plan than just secretly faking the results. Sheesh, I'd think in Italy you'd at least get an idea of the smart ways to be a corrupt government. (Actually, maybe not.)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Surely you don't think it's a good idea to let people who are not citizens of a country, any country, vote for what is best for that country? Why not let people from the UK or Indonesia weigh in too?

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Gee, no, I don't think that's a good idea. Come on.