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. PIMking

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +895
    I don't understand, Do you not have to be a citizen to vote? So why is it illegal to have to prove that you're American citizen
  2. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,578
    The issue was conflict with the federal National Voter Registration Act. It says that states have to "accept and use" the Federal Form for registering voters for federal elections (the Federal Form requires the applicant to swear under penalty of perjury that they are a United States citizen).

    The holding was that Arizona's law, which required citizens to provide documentary evidence of citizenship in addition to the Federal Form or be rejected, meant that the state was not "accepting and using" the Federal Form within the meaning of the act and thus their law, as applied to voters attempting to register using the Federal Form, was in direct conflict with the NVRA and thus preempted and invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    SCOTUS wants to keep voting a federally issued or proven right.
  4. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,578
    Eh, not really.

    While the opinion certainly recognized a broad federal ability to regulate how elections are held (including registration), it also recognized a broad state power to determine qualifications to vote.

    In fact it explicitly holds that the Elections Clause “empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them” (emphasis in original).
  5. atlzamgator

    atlzamgator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +24
    Gatormb, your prehistoric views are just sad.


    You equate a racist general view on home loans with a fundamental right?

    First, read the Supreme Court Opinion. They got it right. And gave a way to address the problem.

    Second- GOPs are too damned stupid to realize that ILLEGALs dont come here to vote.

    3rd- more name calling and race baiting by the GOP won't help with hispanics.

    you guys never learn
  6. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,782
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,852
    The reason small government, self-reliance conservatism doesn't connect with Hispanics is because, by percentage, that is not what they believe in. Nothing to do with immigration one way or another, and no positioning on immigration will change it.
  7. MichaelJoeWilliamson

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Here is the interesting part. This does, I do not believe, impact state laws requiring ID to vote.

    If that is true, consider this; most voter fraud occurs at the point of registration and with absentee ballots. Not at the ballot box.

    Ironical?
  8. rattlesnake

    rattlesnake New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    So stopping the dead & illegals from voting is voter suppression? Is it OK if I vote multiple times for my fav?
  9. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,578
    None of the "big cases" came down today.

    We did get American Express, which probably would have been a big case if this were a different term, holding that arbitration provisions containing class action waivers are enforceable even when it would be cost prohibitive to take an individual claim to arbitration on a non-class basis (because of small damage claims, for example).

Share This Page