Justices invalidate Arizona voter registration law

www.reuters.com ^ | Mon Jun 17, 2013 | Lawrence Hurley

[kimtom]

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona state law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.

In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

The federal law requires prospective voters to provide one of several possible forms of identification, such as a driver's license or a passport, but no proof of citizenship is needed. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the state law was preempted by language in the federal statute saying that states must "accept and use" a federal registration form.

The state law ordered officials to reject the form if there was no accompanying proof of citizenship.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the two dissenters.

The case began when Arizona residents, civil rights groups and Indian tribes sued to challenge the state measure, which they said discriminated against otherwise eligible voters - among them members of more than a score of Native American tribes across the rugged desert state, some of whom struggle to meet additional requirements.

Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, has a reputation for passing tough anti-immigration laws that have brought it into conflict with the Obama administration.

The Arizona voter registration measure is one of many nationwide championed by Republicans...

[kimtom]

"so goes the republic.....and freedom..."

Are we a citizen of the state or nation? whose rule of law reigns? the voter or the politician (judges)

[Travis McGee]

[TADSLOS]

Sovereignty is so 19th Century...

[kimtom]

Arizona, your rights don't count.... only certain votes allowed.

[Christie at the beach]

Everything done at the federal level down to a local supervisory board, is connected to what we all live under. We all have to become involved to make certain we put in place people who understand basic integrity of trust given to their offices. There are so many officials in power all across this nation who are crooked and have given their lives to push an agenda. The constitution is a strong document even in modern times. The people are the problem. I am glad the past 3 states that I have lived in, would not allow me to vote until I showed my driver’s license and voter registration id card. I was hoping the AZ case would be in their favor so it would show a better emphasis for our elections when there are so many corrupted avenues in state elections.

[kimtom]

We can’t make it if “those on top” keep trumping (or is that trampling) on our rights...

Thanks

[RAY]

An aside and in the meantime — at the least, why can’t a state require verification of citizenship for any state election — which should cover everything other than for the US President? The Federal Government shouldn't be able to dictate election rules of a State's internal elections.

[rlmorel]

What on earth has happened to Scalia.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

So does this mean that as a northeast blue state conservative (i.e. a useless vote), i can now vote in AZ with just a passport?

[PeevedPatriot]

No need for the Dems to pass amnesty now if illegals can keep voting with utility bills as ID. Is it still legal to prosecute illegals who vote?

[SC_Pete]

Is this one of those semi-news/ semi-satire things?

[Amendment10]

The following page is as close as I've gotten to the Voter Registration Act.

SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION (beware of cookies)

It appears that one of the very first statements in 1993 Natiional Voter Registration Act violates Supreme Court case precedent imo.

(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

The problem wih the above statement is the following. The Supreme Court had decided Minor v. Happersett against Virginia Minor's argument (paraphrased) that her citizenship automatically gave her the right to vote. in fact, the states later amended the Constitution with the 19th Amendment to prohibit the states from prohibiting otherwise qualified people from voting on the basis of sex.

It remains, as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, that voting is not a fundamental right. The states are able to prohibit citizens from voting on any basis not expressly protected by the Constitution, imo, the states having never amended the Constitution to prohibit people from voting on basis of not being able to prove citizenship.

What am I overlooking?

I did find case opinion but could find no mention of Minor v. Happerset.

[Amendment10]

In previous post I meant to say the following in one of the statements.

The states are able to prohibit citizens from voting on any basis not expressly protected by the Constitution, imo, the states having never amended the Constitution to prohibit the states from prohibiting people from voting on basis of not being able to prove citizenship.

[MrB]

They must have found something on him similar to what they found on Roberts.

[rlmorel]

Check out this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3032524/posts?page=16

It explains it in a very positive way. Now, I completely didn’t see it the way it is explained, and as another poster said, it could be someone trying to make chicken feed out of chicken poop, but I know the author’s work (read his book a while back) and if he thinks it is good, I am willing to listen.

[kimtom]

excellent post