Posted on 04/30/2020 7:30:49 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
A federal appeals court on Wednesday backed a lower court’s ruling that a Kansas voter identification law crafted by former Secretary of State Kris Kobach is unconstitutional and violates the National Voter Registration Act.
The law heralded by Kobach took effect in 2013 and mandates that people provide documentation proving U.S. citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.
The decision from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after a federal district court struck down the law on the same grounds. The judges said the state had failed to provide convincing arguments in its appeal that Kansas was grappling with an issue over noncitizens attempting to register to vote.
"In short, we conclude that the Secretary has failed to show that a substantial number of noncitizens successfully registered to vote," they wrote.
The law has spent years under the legal limelight. A federal judge ruled in 2016 that Kansas does not have the constitutional power to mandate people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and later ruled in 2018 that Kobach was in contempt of court over failing to comply with orders in a case challenging the law.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
What is the 'substantial number' needed to prove voting fraud?
How long will we put up with this? Our Founders would be shooting by now.
There should not be any need to prove non-citizens are voting to require proof of citizenship to vote.
Citizenship IS required for voting.
If I get a ticket for speeding, can it be tossed out because the state can’t prove a substantial number of drivers were speeding?
On to SCOTUS.
Who needs Voter Registration , just show up give them a name and you’re good to go Dem style
Beware of courts in KS: they may not be dispensing real justice.
The judges said the state had failed to provide convincing arguments in its appeal that Kansas was grappling with an issue over noncitizens attempting to register to vote.
******************
Its not a question of providing “convincing” evidence of voter fraud, the purpose is to PREVENT it happening in any case.
As an example, a state may not have evidence of people speeding on public roads but it can certainly place limits on speed to protect the public.
Even one noncitizen voter is substantial.
Just ask the Mexican government.
What does "grappling with an issue" or whether the issue is "substantial" have to do with ensuring that only citizens are voting? Either the Constitution is an enforceable contract between the people and its overseers, er.., government, or efforts to ensure that contract are a total sham, totally shackled by political whim.
Let’s face the fact that we an no longer trust election results. How much longer until we just say nope, not accepting this?
This will not end nicely, guaranteed.
I made a similar argument in post #8. The court’s “logic” should be easy to defeat at the next level.
Kinda seems to me like saying we'll make murder illegal after a murder takes place. I thought the purpose of the legal system was to protect people before a crime happened as well as providing punishment after it happens?
It’s an absurd ad hoc ruling.
You can’t make a preventative law because not so many people are violating it?
Really?
So says another black robed puppet legislating from an exalted position on high.
Have a substantial number of people been shown to illegally buy guns? Ban background checks. Ban proof of citizenship to buy a gun. In fact, ban even having to show an ID.
Incredibly sad news.
This judge is doing their job (for the dems) doing their best to help to steal elections. 50 to 100 years ago that dumb-shit would be found hanging from the branches of a tree, just as a message to the rest of the crooks.
Hope they appeal it.
Try and do this in Mexico or any other country
In the hundreds of postings here in Free Republic rarely is this brought up. It’s Known As Reciprocity. We should be treating anybody illegally crossing the Mexican border into the US the way the Mexican’s do if anybody from the US does it;
Any American illegally .crossing into Mexico. Before being kicked out can get a heavy fine and possible imprisonment.
It’s time we consider illegal entry by any person who is a non Mexican citizen illegally entering the United States through the US Mexican border a defacto Mexican citizen with limited Mexican constitutional rights subject to their laws while transiting. As well as any Mexican citizen entering illegally exempting those who do so legally.
According to the Mexican constitution Americans legally in Mexico get a 2nd class treatment. Besides being unable to vote one must also be a citizen to own land and Mexico is very restrictive about granting citizenship. Because of that a US citizen besides not being able to vote,and cannot have title in their name to any land property in Mexico. It’s time the US should consider making that reciprocal.
Prohibit and fully legally enforce punishment to violators offering any illegal entrant employment, voting, and land ownership privileges .In other words the incentives to those thinking of sneakimg into this country are removed and those that do better expect expulsion no job no voting no landowning ..
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.