Skip to comments.Arizona: the Nothingburger Supreme Court Case
Posted on 06/18/2013 8:51:41 AM PDT by Resettozero
The case has nothing to do with voter ID, so anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The real action comes in the next week when the Court decides Shelby v. Holder. Todays Arizona decision was next to meaningless.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I don’t really understand this case but we’ve been fighting a similar battle here in Michigan over verification that voters are legal citizens.
The left calls it self incrimination.
I thought it was odd that there was very little discussion in the articles I read of the basis or the legal technicalities of the SCOTUS decision when it was first announced.
I hope this post is right.
I don’t trust any of them to do the right thing.
While Justice Thomas' dissent on AZ v Tribal Council would have been preferred as the majority opinion, is there hope for a better result in the more meaningful case Shelby v. Holder next week?
Wasn’t Michigan the state where Leftist got bent out of shape because voters were simply required to affirm on their voter application form that they were a citizen, allegedly “intimidating” the poor creatures from voting?
This decision, in plain English:
The Constitution divides up the power to determine who will be allowed to vote between state governments and Congress. The states have the basic power to decide who is eligible to vote but, so far as state laws are aimed at who gets to vote for President or Congress, the Constitution gives Congress a back-up power to change or even to override those state laws.
The Supreme Court on Monday made a significant effort to try to sort out how to divide up this power, in the context of deciding whether a state may require would-be voters to show proof that they are U.S. citizens both to register and to actually vote. That proof requirement was challenged by various advocacy groups, because Congress in 1993 had passed a law designed to expand the ranks of voters, and a federal agency acting under that law has specified a form that voters may use to register.
The argument before the Court was that the federal law must control, because Congress had specified that, in filling out a federal form, all would-be voters had to do was to swear they are U.S. citizens, while Arizona went further and required an actual piece of official paper to prove citizenship. The challengers argued that the two approaches cannot co-exist, so the state proof requirement had to yield.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court agreed that, for now, Arizonas proof requirement must yield to the federal forms approach that is, it is enough to register, using that form, if the would-be voter swears that he satisfies the citizenship requirement.
On the other hand, however, the Court also ruled that Arizona can seek permission from federal officials to impose its proof-of-citizenship requirement. If it fails with that request, it can go to court and argue that it has a constitutional right to make proof of citizenship a binding requirement for all voters.
It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily.
Yeah. The checkbox amounts to an affidavit that you are aware of the law and are a legal voter. The left claims that its a 5th amendment violation and opens up their illegal voters to prosecution.
Interestingly enough, the day after the 2012 election, illegal “dreamers” protested the secretary of state over the fact that she refused to give them driver’s licenses. They claimed it made them feel singled out when voting (We have a must ask law for ID.) The SOS told them that it was illegal for them to vote anyway and told them that Obama created their limbo so they’d need to take it up with him.
sounds like a bad decision to me, in that, only citizens are legally permitted to vote, but now it’s said to be unconstitutional to verify citizenship.
There are many things about voting I don’t understand. For example, why do we have ballots in multiple languages?
1. Only American citizens are legally allowed to vote.
2. Immigrants who have become citizens are legally required to have a knowledge of English.
3. Thus, all legal citizens who are permitted to vote by definition will know English.
4. So, why is there a need for ballots in languages other than English, if by definition all legally permitted voters by definition know English?
I only knew about because another freeper alerted me to it last night! :)
Very good questions about who was voting in your precinct. But you learned you were not supposed to notice or ask any questions.
it gets me how liberals look at things. We need an ID to do so many routine activities, yet liberals oppose voter ID. We need parental authorization for so many activities of our children, including medical treatment. Yet liberals oppose parental consent if your underage daughter is going to have an invasive medical procedure (abortion).
Beware! Regarding SCOTUS decision in AZ voting requirements case, are activist justices using PC decisions in minor cases like AZ, testing constitutionality of state voting laws in this example, to establish unconstitutional case precedents that they can then use to “justify” their mischief in more important cases like Shelby v. Holder?