Skip to comments.Voter citizenship issue goes before federal court
Posted on 08/24/2014 12:31:36 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) A lawsuit filed by Kansas and Arizona will be argued before a federal appeals court panel this week as the states seek to force federal election officials to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements on national voter registration forms.
At the crux of the closely watched case in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is whether the federal government or states have ultimate authority to regulate voter registration. Each side contends the U.S. Constitution supports its position.
Monday's arguments come after the U.S. Election Assistance Commission filed an appeal seeking to overturn a federal judge's order that the commission modify a federal form to include special instructions requiring Kansas and Arizona residents to provide citizenship documentation when they register to vote.
The litigation has drawn widespread attention. More than a dozen voting-rights groups have either joined the lawsuit or friend-of-the-court briefs. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top lawmakers urged the appeals court to throw out the lower court's ruling, arguing it would limit the authority of Congress to regulate federal elections and derail its ability to pass legislation protecting the right to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
Oh For God’s sake...!!!
That this has to even go to court...Morons running this country and moron citizens.
This is a critically important issue. When no proof of citizenship is required to vote, our elections are no better than any banana republic. I am a naturalized citizen and no state has ever asked me to furnish my citizenship certificate in all the states where I have voted. Just mind boggling. In my current residence, WA state 100% voting is by mail. No one even sees my face when I vote!
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."
BS arguments from the Voting Rights Act be damned.
If the voters had to prove they were citizens of America the dumb-o-crats would never hold office again even with all the votes they get from dead people.
Liberal logic: Only citizens can vote, but it is illegal to prove citizenship before voting.
Regarding voter citizenship requirements, doesn't anybody read the Constitution anymore? (RTFM)
The only voting rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect are those based on race, sex, tax status, and age as evidenced by amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26 respectively.
Otherwise, since the states have never amended the Constitution to make not having to prove citizenship before being allowed to vote a right, please consider the following.
Not only does the language of the 14th Amendment (14A) clearly associate constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities with citizenship, but John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, and also the Supreme Court have clarified that constitutionally protected privileges and immunities, such as the four voting amendments referenced above, are rights of ctizinship as evidenced by the following excerpts.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly [emphasis added] defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And speaking of voting rights, the states have also never amended the Constitution to make not having to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the Constitution, as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, before being allowed to vote a protected right, such a test emphasizing the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and associated limited power to lay taxes. Note that such a test could be under 10 T/F questions and administered as part of a driver's licence test.
More specifically, regardless that Virginia Minor argued that her citizenship in conjunction with the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause gave her the right to vote, the Supreme Court didn't buy it but clarified the following about 14A. The Court indicated that 14A added no new constitutional protections, it simply strengthed rights enumerated to the Constitution by the states.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect voting rights on the basis of sex, 14A did not automatically add such protections regardless of the Equal Protections Clause.
Note that Virginia Minor's efforts were not wasted because the states later ratified the 19th Amendment (19A) which essentially gave women the right to vote.
But in contrast to 19A, the states have never amended the Constitution to make not having to prove citizenship before being allowed to vote a right, vote-winning, PC interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause irrelevant on this issue.
It seems to me that elections are state-controlled. House races are district by district by popular vote, Senate races are state-wide, too, managed by each state's secretary of state.
Even presidential elections are not really for the candidates nationally, but for state electors to the Electoral College.
Therefore, where does the federal government think it has the power to regulate the proof of eligibility of elections that occur entirely within a single state?
They will probably argue equal protection, but all voters within a state are equally protected. Practices that differ between states don't have to be identical as a definition of equal protection, because each state already has different rules for absentee voting, early voting, voting devices, etc. So, the interstate equal protection argument already fails.
All voting for all federal offices are solely intra-state affairs, and therefore should be under the regulation of each state as it sees fit.
Also, remember that in 2013 SCOTUS threw out the parts of the Voting Rights Act that allowed Eric Holder to tamper with southern state voting. They may be in a mood to give more voting control back to the states.
Agree. This shred of thoroughly constitutional federalism wouldn’t be an issue at all if the states hadn’t booted themselves from the senate 101 years ago.
And, the Congress has the power to reject a presidential winner if they think that election was tainted. That power has never been exercised, I think.
Seriously? How can this even be a question? So the argument is that just anyone can come into the country and vote? Seriously? If that’s true then why have a country? Taxation without representation anyone?
All they need is to judge shop for a leftist and that judge will rule whatever the Obamites want
Disbursement of taxation without representation.
I wonder who Vladimir Putin, Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will vote for. They could vote too, right?
Vote? Heck, they can probably run!
“They could vote too, right?
Vote? Heck, they can probably run!”
Well we have one as President...
Even if we win, the racist president and the racist attorney general won’t do it.