Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Voter citizenship issue goes before federal court
AP ^ | 8-24-14 | Roxanna Hegeman

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: citizenship; elections; kansas; voterfraud; votingrights

1 posted on 08/24/2014 12:31:37 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Oh For God’s sake...!!!
That this has to even go to court...Morons running this country and moron citizens.


2 posted on 08/24/2014 12:34:59 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Bush won the War in Iraq, Obozo lost the peace..and gave Iraq back to the Terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

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!


3 posted on 08/24/2014 12:36:34 PM PDT by entropy12 (Obummer = worst & laziest president ever, any RINO would be better than this POS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Article I Section 2:

"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.

4 posted on 08/24/2014 12:40:05 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

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.


5 posted on 08/24/2014 12:43:20 PM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Liberal logic: Only citizens can vote, but it is illegal to prove citizenship before voting.


6 posted on 08/24/2014 12:52:29 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; All
Thank you for referencing that article afraidfortherepublic. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

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.

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.

7 posted on 08/24/2014 1:07:53 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; All
Let's not be fooled about activist justices deciding voting rights with respect to citizenship. Note that the Supreme Court has historically already clarified voting rights with respect to citizenship.

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.

8 posted on 08/24/2014 1:50:03 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


9 posted on 08/24/2014 1:51:00 PM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

Really?


10 posted on 08/24/2014 1:52:05 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
From reading this, I think the issue here is not proof of citizenship to vote, but whether the states have the power to regulate their own elections or if the federal government has the power.

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.

-PJ

11 posted on 08/24/2014 2:04:59 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

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.


12 posted on 08/24/2014 2:11:38 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Also, the House and Senate already have the power to refuse to seat an election winner if they think the election was tainted. It's been done before.

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.

-PJ

13 posted on 08/24/2014 2:19:29 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

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?


14 posted on 08/24/2014 2:31:06 PM PDT by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

All they need is to judge shop for a leftist and that judge will rule whatever the Obamites want


15 posted on 08/24/2014 2:32:10 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug
Taxation without representation anyone?

Disbursement of taxation without representation.

-PJ

16 posted on 08/24/2014 2:32:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I wonder who Vladimir Putin, Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will vote for. They could vote too, right?


17 posted on 08/24/2014 2:34:11 PM PDT by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug
They could vote too, right?

Vote? Heck, they can probably run!

-PJ

18 posted on 08/24/2014 2:38:29 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“They could vote too, right?
Vote? Heck, they can probably run!”

Well we have one as President...


19 posted on 08/24/2014 2:39:54 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Even if we win, the racist president and the racist attorney general won’t do it.


20 posted on 08/24/2014 2:49:41 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Are we the only country on earth that allows non citizens to vote?

Katrina victims were allowed to vote in the Louisiana election FROM Houston.

We’ve lost it.


21 posted on 08/24/2014 3:22:13 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps. And they're all stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I don’t trust activist judges who legislate from the bench - this whole thing seems quite suspicious.


22 posted on 08/24/2014 4:34:28 PM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson