SCOTUS Strikes Down Arizona Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,166
    Likes Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,442
    Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

    Justice Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan with Kennedy joining in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas and Alito dissenting.

    Held that the portion of Arizona law requiring Arizona officials to reject any application for voter registration, including the "federal form" application, which is not accompanied by satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the NVRA) which requires states to accept and use the uniform "federal form" for registering voters for federal elections.

    As a note, the federal form requires the applicant to certify under penalty of perjury that they are a United States citizen, but the Arizona law called for elections officials to reject certified federal forms unless they were also accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. The Supreme Court held that this requirement unlawfully conflicted with the NVRA and struck it down.
  2. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,917
    Likes Received:
    816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,605
    I can see in your own post where the legal basis of the ruling comes from -- Arizona basically taking a dump on the full faith and credit of the federal government in a way that they obviously couldn't upon another state -- but it is ever frustrating, because it's yet another turn at which one is forced to say "may no one step into the void to defend US sovereignty?"
  3. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    there is already provision in U.S. law for fed govt to step in and take over all voting registration, voting machines, counting of votes, etc for elections involving national office(POTUS, and possibly U.S. senate and U.S. house). This is an option for Obama to use exec order for upcoming elections if GOP attempts further voter suppression, etc in elections that are for voting for candidates for national office.
  4. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,917
    Likes Received:
    816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,605
    McMinn County War, writ large, would result.

    Obvious and least restrictive steps to insure that only American citizens vote in American elections cannot, by definition, by "voter" suppression.
  5. GatorAvatar
    Offline

    GatorAvatar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,794
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +170
    Damn, now we have to wait till the end of June for affirmative action, doma and prop8 rulings.
  6. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,917
    Likes Received:
    816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,605
    Eh, they already had their chance to do the right thing with affirmative action (i.e. remembering to flush twice) years back. No idea what they'll do with doma and prop 8 at this point. Roberts will decide that being married is a tax or being gay is a tax, or both.
  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,166
    Likes Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,442
    There's an opinion release day scheduled this Thursday, the normal Monday one next week, and the odds are that one or more additional opinion days will be added next week.

    Big cases still outstanding are Fisher (affirmative action, probably a Kennedy opinion since he is the only Justice without an opinion in an October case and every other October case has been decided), Shelby County (constitutional challenge to Voting Rights Act Section 5, likely a Roberts opinion again because of lack of decisions by him from that month), and Perry and Windsor (gay marriage cases, widely assumed to be Kennedy opinions - or possibly an omnibus opinion for both cases, although I doubt that - because he is almost certainly the key vote on the issue either way).

    Just speculation on my part, but I would guess that Fisher (which is nearing the record for longest wait between argument and decision) and/or Shelby County, as the oldest "big opinions" will probably come down on Thursday, possibly both depending on what opinion days they have next week. Windsor and Perry are probably last day opinions given that they are controversial, likely closely divided cases that were argued late in the term, so the Court is likely to be working on opinions for them up to the last minute. I would be suprised to see Fisher and Shelby County come down on the same day as the gay marriage cases, but it is possible.
  8. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,845
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,167
    The DOMA case is actually a tax case, no? :grin:
  9. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    41,470
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +3,836
    You don't want voter ID laws because you know that a lot of people who don't have an ID (illegal) won't be able to vote for the party that gives them free stuff, right?
  10. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,166
    Likes Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,442
    Sort of, yes. As the argument was framed a big part of the federalism question (one potential basis for striking DOMA, although the Equal Protection analysis would still be necessary if it survives the federalism review) would be whether DOMA was Necessary & Proper for carrying out the taxing power of the federal government. And one of the potential rational bases advanced as underlying it for the Equal Protection analysis was the argument that administrative simplicity in administering the federal income tax by having a uniform national definition of a married couple justified it. (Whether that argument holds water is another story, there's the counter argument that requiring the federal government to go through and identify couples who are married under state law but not federal law actually increases administrative burden.)
  11. GatorAvatar
    Offline

    GatorAvatar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,794
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +170
    Interesting analysis
  12. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,776
    Likes Received:
    2,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,834
    In other words, if Arizona follows federal law there will be no voter suppression excuse from the leftists.
  13. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Reading some of the lawyers interpreting the opinions, it appears that this is a very narrow, technical ruling. Certainly not a sweeping one. The court seemed to basically say that Arizona was stepping over Federal Law. For example, Federal law requires all people registering to vote must swear they are a legal US Citizen.
  14. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    So, now it looks like the GOP will move to present a Federal Law that explicitly allows states to ask people to prove they are S Citizens
  15. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,166
    Likes Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,442
    Correct, this was a statutory interpretation case that turned on what the words "accept and use" in the federal law meant. While it tangentially raised some issues regarding the federal government's constitutional authority to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, at heart it was about what the words "accept and use" meant and whether they required the states to register persons who submitted the Federal Form or whether states were still permitted to require things in addition to the Federal Form (essentially whether they could "use" the form as part, but not all, of the required elements of their registration process).
  16. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,062
    This may sound confusing but I heard on the radio this morning that this isn't about voting, it's about voter redistration due to Arizona using federal forms for registration. I know in SC we passed a voter law that people have to show ID and it passed muster with the judges. I think there are 3 states that did what Arizona did, so maybe they need to follow what SC did so they don't have Hussein suing them and there will be nothing he can do about it since SC and a couple of other states have figured it out.
  17. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +2,062
    Also on the "national" gay marriage stuff, I have heard that they will "refer" back to the states which means the states voters will decide if they want gay marriage or not. Just what I heard.

    On the voter law ruled on yesterday to understand it better you need to read the supreme court blog on what it actually means. It's not what you think liberals, at least that's how it was explained this morning.
  18. GatorAvatar
    Offline

    GatorAvatar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,794
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +170
    Bloody racists in Arizona. Didn't Scalia vote against this? If Scalia thinks you are violating the constitution then you are indeed a moron
  19. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,917
    Likes Received:
    816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,605
    It really wasn't decided on "Arizona r teh racists", but whatever floats your boat.
  20. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,354
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,144
    Wife is in the title business and works with about six different Hispanic Realtors. Their Hispanic clients do whatever they're told to do, sometimes to the point of fraud.

    Sellers have to sign an affidavit they are US citizens or have a % of the proceeds withheld. Wife is not required to get proof, just the affidavit.

    I would bet a months pay a bunch are fraudulent. She's gone to checking SS #'s to cover her Butt and found several fraudulent.

    Know one of them bought a bunch of flips in his father's name who claimed citizenship when selling. found out later the guy lives in Peru and has only visited the US.

    The vast majority of mortgage fraud in the 80's & 90's in Florida was in Broward and Dade Counties. So bad that many lenders quit lending there. The vast majority of the fraud was Hispanic.

    I had two Hispanic LO's work for me. Their clients trusted them because they spoke their language. In actuality these LO's were charging them double the normal commission because they were ignorant. I forbade it and both moved on to where it was encouraged to charge what the market will bare. Today they would go to jail.

    Seems that the end justifies the means too often in the Hispanic Community is my limited experience in my field.

Share This Page