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 ...
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.