Skip to comments.SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013
Posted on 06/17/2013 7:00:00 AM PDT by Perdogg
SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013
This is the case involving Arizonas requirement that would-be voters provide proof of citizenship before being able to register to vote. Arizonas proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justice Kennedy concurs in part and in judgment. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.
See ya Thursday....
you are welcome
Thanks Perdogg,Do you have a ping list for this?
BuckeyeTexan has the ping list
Thanks for ping.
From Alito’s dissenting opinion:
But when read in context, that provision simply identifies the time within which a State must process registration applications; it says nothing about whether a State may require the submission of supplemental in- formation.
The Courts more expansive interpretation of §1973gg6(a)(1)(B) sneaks in a qualification that is nowhere to be found in the text.
The Court takes pains to say that a State need not register an applicant who properly completes and submits a federal form but is known by the State to be ineligible. See ante, at 1213.
But the Court takes the position that a State may not demand that an applicant supply any additional information to confirm voting eligibility. Nothing in §1973gg 6(a)(1)(B) supports this distinction.
What is a State to do if it has reason to doubt an applicants eligibility but cannot be sure that the applicant is ineligible?
Must the State either grant or deny registration without communicating with the applicant? Or does the Court believe that a State may ask for additional information in individual cases but may not impose a categorical requirement for all applicants? If that is the Courts position, on which provision of the NVRA does it rely?
The Courts reading of §1973gg6(a)(1)(B) is atextual and makes little sense.
* * * Properly interpreted, the NVRA permits Arizona to require applicants for federal voter registration to provide proof of eligibility. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Good thing the. TX Constitution have WAY more protections regarding the right to remain silent than the Federal Constitution provides.
TX prevents the use of post arrest silence AND pre arrest silence.
I need to read this opinion before I go further, but the makeup of the 5-4 court doesn’t look right here based on my knowledge of their prior cases.
Also, just to clarify what I said about TX law.
This SCOTUS case was actually a TX murder trial in state court.
The key is for the defense attorney to specifically object based on Article 1 Section 10 of the TX Constitution.
Most attorneys will simply object based on the 5the Amendment to the US Constitution.
That is a huge mistake when the state tries to use pre arrest silence against the defendant.
How about having them register to vote in state elections first and requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. If they can't vote in state elections they are not on the state eligible voters and you can arrest them for perjury if they vote in federal elections
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The ideological mix of the justices in the majority on some of these recent decisions is confusing me. What does the legal community think? Are y’all surprised by the atypical makeup of the majority?
Scalia and Thomas do not seem to be voting together as often.
The "liberal" vs. "conservative" labeling of the justices is a shorthand that is somewhat oversimplified and does not always predict votes. As I pointed out about last week's cases, Scalia is often on the defense side in criminal cases and Breyer is very often on the prosecution side. Even Ginsburg is sometimes pro-prosecution in criminal cases.
Today's rulings, however, have been remarked upon in the legal blogosphere as being surprising. Few observers expected Scalia's vote in the Arizona voting case, and the votes in Alleyne (the 6th Amendment/ sentencing case) are very unusual--Thomas is almost never on the defense side in a closely-split criminal case, and Scalia, who dissented in Alleyne has been on the defense side in previous cases on that issue.
I simply have NO idea what we're going get in Windsor, Hollingsworth, Fisher, and Shelby County.
Take a look at this:
meant to ping to post 39