Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to AZ Proof of Citizenship Law
Posted on 03/17/2013 9:47:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to AZ Proof of Citizenship Law
Ariane de Vogue
WASHINGTON Lawyers for Arizona, a state that has clashed repeatedly with the federal government on the issue of immigration, will be back at the Supreme Court on Monday defending a state law that requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in elections.
Critics of the law say that it conflicts with federal law the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which is sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter law. It was enacted in 1993 to establish uniform procedures to vote in federal elections. .
The NVRA provides a federal form for registration in which the registrant is required to check a box indicating U.S. citizenship and to sign the form under penalty of perjury.
But the state law, Proposition 200, which passed in 2004, requires any registrant who does not have a drivers license issued after 1996 or a non-operating license to provide documents such as a copy of a birth certificate or a passport.
The case is intrinsically important, says election law expert Edward B. Foley of the Moritz School of Law at Ohio State University, because it asks whether a state can add a requirement to prove U.S. citizenship at the time of voter registration, beyond what the federal government requires under the NVRA.
This is an important case that is under the radar screen, because it involves not only the issue of immigration but also the regulation of voting rights, Foley says. More broadly, how do we make the rules of elections and who gets to write the rules the federal government or the states?
Groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) say the law puts additional burden on voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Does this logic apply to gun laws. Can states have gun restrictions or restrictions on the 2A more stringent then Fed law?
Traitor Roberts will make the case for it being a tax.
Bammy and H0lder are all about ignoring laws they don’t like and selective enforcement of the plethora of Laws they have promulgated.
Pretty sure a state has the power to disenfranchise welfare recipients same way they can strip felons of their right to vote
The scumbags in DC haven’t passed any ammendments or laws addressing the matter
All it takes is some governors with balls and a state legislature to back them
If a State requires proof of birth or citizenship to elect state assemblymen, I do not understand how that can be a contested standard for Congressional elections.
A birth certificate is proof of live birth, not citizenship. We assume persons born in the U.S. stay in the country and maintain their citizenship throughout their life.
Not true. Anyone of any age can move out of the country and request a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. State Department. The U.S. Constitution provides for the freedom to associate and disassociate.
This concept was recently affirmed in Fox v. Clinton (2012), U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any U.S. Citizen who moves out of the country, obtains the nationality of the host country, and requests a CLN should be issued a CLN. The U.S. State Department has been issuing and denying CLN’s to expatriates arbitrarily and capriciously since 1959. The U.S. State Department is not qualified to interpret the INA, nor is it qualified to interpret international law. Only a U.S. Court is qualified to interpret U.S. law. The U.S. State Department can only follow the law, not interpret it.
Related, with 47 replies:
It doesn't place a burden on anyone who can prove their bona fides. It places a burden on the democRATS to keep their voter fraud machine running.
Of course the laws are there to protect the nation---the founders fled and fought foreign domination. Thus, they structured the new govt as a fortress against foreign control.
However----let's try to understand what is happening and why a simple contruct could be the subject of dispute.
The thing that drives Ohaha and his hate-filled crew: It is an article of faith in O's "community" that all US laws, rules, regs, our constitution our govt and its agencies, etc----exist for one purpose: to preserve the "status quo." In their tortured minds that means to elevate and maintain whites in positions of power in order to diminish non-whites to servile status, to keep non-whites in their place,
Thus, the destruction of the "meritocracy" is complete----the best and brightest, the smartest, the most accomplished are shoved aside in favor of "a phony diversity." We are seeing the empowerment of the dregs of society---those on the margins, criminals, law-breaking latinos, etc etc etc.
FReeper Aemilius Paulus on another thread nailed it precisely. "Live with it, white America. We are the conquered people". And our troubles have only just begun.
The only humor---if any---in this woeful situation is watching Obama voters who sap-happily figured "egalitarianism" would become the norm once O was elected. They will soon learn how very wrong they were.
If I could talk to one of the leading Senate demagogues like Schumer, Durbin . . . I would ask how much money the democrat party needs to achieve perfect social justice. I know the answer is: “All of it,” but I want to hear what these clowns say.