Skip to comments.No Ruling Yet, But Justices Skeptical of Arizona Voter Law [Kennedy Likely To Join Liberals]
Posted on 03/18/2013 9:02:09 PM PDT by Steelfish
No Ruling Yet, But Justices Skeptical of Arizona Voter Law
Supreme Court justices expressed some skepticism on Monday about an Arizona law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.
The legal question before the nine justices is whether the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law is trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which outlines various ways in which people can register to vote in federal elections.
That law requires no proof of citizenship. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.
Based on Monday's oral argument, it was unclear how the court will rule, but a number of justices, including regular swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy raised some concerns about the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com ...
Why would they be skeptical? Do they really think we should give foreigners the vote?
It shouldn’t even be a question before the court. OF COURSE someone should show proof of citizenship before they vote. I just got hired as a substitute teacher and had to show proof to get a frickin’ job!
So, how are we supposed to know if someone voting in our elections is a US citizen? These so called “justices” are all on drugs if they think a worthless signature on a worthless piece of paper is proof of US citizenship . In God We Trust. All other must provide proof of citizenship.
The issue is not what the Justices think. Congress thinks that voter registration shouldn't require proof of citizenship. The Constitution says that Congress can decide the "time, place and manner" of federal elections. Arizona's law-- however good an idea it is-- can't override the Motor Voter Act.
nbc trying to influence.
Ah, but proving citizenship is a sign of racism now! Haven’t you been paying attention these past 5 years? /sarc
Why have borders then, Justice Kennedy?
I watched at a Hispanic Festival while they got known illegals by the score to register to vote. They told them to just check the “US Citizen” block, no questions asked.
When I went up to register myself as a test, I asked them about how do I prove I’m a citizen. They said “Don’t worry about it - no one checks”.
I called the Registrar’s Office the next day and asked if there is any follow-up checks with these registration forms. Answer was “No, never - we don’t have the time”.
Illegal alien voting has already been the difference in getting Al Franken and Jim Webb into the Senate, and Sanchez into the House.
When I asked local Republican officials and state representatives and senators why they don’t fight it, their answer was “we don’t want to be accused as racists”. Not exactly a profile in courage.
Now these idiots like Priebus today want to give illegals by the tens of millions the right to vote (democratic).
Shear lunacy! The Republican party will cease to exist by 2030. There will be a Democrat Party and a Partidad de la Raza, once the hispanics reach 51% and decide they don’t need democrats. Of course, by then it will be a different and smaller country, like Russia, as hispanic states spin off to join Mexico or become new nations, California being the first.
Nothing is over until the opinion is published. It is common practice to press both sides.
If citizens here in the USA think they are 2nd class citizens in their own country as lawlessness increases, it could only make people angry.
Let’s de-fuse the whole situation by seeking the LORD in prayer.
Those of us who are Christians need to pray for the Supreme Court Justices to have Godly wisdom regarding who gets to vote in the USA.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
The king’s heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
And as Freeper oldbill pointed out, fraud and lying are growing more common all the time. We need to pray for ...
2) our neighbors
3) our nation
... so that God will visit us in a holy restoration of Christian living, like we’ve had before in this nation. Please see paragraph 1 of http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2997910/posts for the details.
Lurking Libertarian : good point! Though the Supreme Court “interprets” the laws, ** Congress ** makes laws.
**Please** let me know if I can add you to the “Holy Restoration” ping list.
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. - James 1:22
My Constitution says
"The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
Nothing about manner or place.
Facebook REQUIRES a Govt. Issued Id for a Facebook account holder to change their name. You are supposed to upload a copy to the Facebook-Gods. But to vote? Libs opposed to that.
First, Virginia Minor and her lawyer husband fought for her right to vote by arguing that her citizenship conferred the right to vote. But the Supreme Court said nope. So citizenship, even if you are of voting age, does not automatically guarantee the right to vote.
But what's even more damning for any federal laws that activist justices might argue trump Arizona's voter qualification laws is the following. Not only has the Supreme Court already clarified that citizenship doesn't guarantee the right to vote. but also note that the first part of each of the four constitutional amendments which protect voting rights clearly associate voting rights with citizenship.
15th Amendment, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote (emphasis added) shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote (emphasis added) shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
24th Amendment, Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote (emphasis added) in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26th Amendment, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote (emphases added), shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Again, although you don't necessarily have the right to vote just because you're a citizen as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett, I read the Constitution as saying that you don't have the right to vote if you aren't a citizen.
So Arizona is actually setting an example for other states to follow to insure voting compliance with the Constitution.
The only people who are concerned about the states prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting, imo, are corrupt federal government "leaders" who are trying to take advantage of votes from illegals to help unconstitutionally centralize government power in DC.
Great Words and Thoughts ROTB. It is always a good time to pray for ourselves, our neighbors, and our nation.
I know the solution. Poll “fees” and background checks. Libs like using it for the 2nd amendment. Haha
In a sane world, the decision would be 9 to 0 in favor of requiring proof of Citizenship in order to Register to Vote.
In a saner world, it would already be required.
Motor Voter, the biggest Vote Fraud ever foisted upon this Country is still going strong, and guess what, nobody checks the validity of those Registering to Vote under Motor Voter either.
Not to mention Florida. I know at least 20 Brazilians personally who I KNOW are here in green card that voted.
So, if the whole population of Mexico decided to register to vote in the US, these fools would be OK with that? Or what if everyone in the world registered? OK?
Article I Section 2 and the 17th Amendment specify the qualifications of electors to the House and Senate have the same qualifications as electors to the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
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.
Yes, it does. See Article I Section 4.
“John Marshall made his decision; now I’ll make mine.” Andrew Jackson To my knowledge, Jackson was never fined, arrested or imprisoned for going against a Supreme Court ruling. If the SC votes to allow illegals to vote, it is the end of the republic and we might as well not vote.
Of course, Roberts could declare this is a tax and you can’t have a poll tax.
This gets approved by the SC, why do we bother to have a vote anylong anyway? SEnd out all the free ballots to anyone in the world and let them also vote. Who needs to be living in this country if that happens. What REALLY gets me riled is that our military votes DO NOT GET COUNTED when coming from overseas.
The "times, places and manner" are determined by the legislatures of each state.
but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The Congress may alter the rules (note the exception for the place of choosing Senators. Senators had always been a State concern until the 17th Amendment) but the primary responsibility is the individual states.
But Article I Section 4 specifically covers elections of Representatives and Senators, and not the President.
Article I, section 5, clause 1, re Congressional elections.
Uh, that has nothing to do with the actual "election" (i.e. selection of people who will serve) of the members of the house (see Article 1, Section 4 for that), but rather how "Each House" of Congress has the right to run each house how they see fit.
Those who make peaceful change impossible
make violent revolution inevitable.
interesting, you have to show proof you are a licensed attorney in all your pleadings via a bar #.
14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States (emphases added), or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The only issue before the Court, unfortunately, is whether the Motor Voter law is one regulating the "manner of holding elections" for Congress. If it is, it trumps Arizona's law.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I’m not sure what you were getting at, but Motor Voter cannot trump the Constitution. Each State determines, subject to the Constitution, the qualifications of Congressional electors.
Yes, but as noted above “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations”. So we’ll see how the Supremes interpret it.
I could see them making either argument. But I’m choosing to be hopeful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.