Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That pinko Commie Scalia pizzing on the Republican Party again, eh?

June 17, 2013

Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from prospective voters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision on Monday.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law.

The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

A divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the two sets of requirements “do not operate harmoniously” and “are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.”

The decision from that panel effectively affirmed a 2010 ruling from a three-judge panel that included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2006 but occasionally acts as a visiting appeals court judge. She joined the majority in ruling that the state law was inconsistent with the federal one and so could not survive.

Justice O’Connor was in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on Monday to see the announcement of the decision that affirmed the decision of the panel on which she had sat.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Makes total sense Constitutionally, however it does means the states can't fashion their own remedies. Congress would have to pass such a law, and the Democrat's will continue to fight for the right of non-citizens, felons, minors, dead people, and fictional characters, to dilute the votes of legitimate voters who vote only once per election.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Makes total sense Constitutionally, however it does means the states can't fashion their own remedies. Congress would have to pass such a law, and the Democrat's will continue to fight for the right of non-citizens, felons, minors, dead people, and fictional characters, to dilute the votes of legitimate voters who vote only once per election.

Yeah, that old myth. It's really gotten boring.

[RGinWA 816]

Makes total sense Constitutionally, however it does means the states can't fashion their own remedies. Congress would have to pass such a law, and the Democrat's will continue to fight for the right of non-citizens, felons, minors, dead people, and fictional characters, to dilute the votes of legitimate voters who vote only once per election.

And Republican's will do their part by closing early voting, limit hours to vote, passing strict voter ID laws, tossing out voter registration of Democrats (see link to Strategic Allied Consulting ) and generally try to keep poor people from voting.

As far as felons, most states allow felons to vote already.

The other three; minors, dead people and fictional characters is a myth. I mean how would a minor get registered to vote and the fictional character reference is from a voters registration card that was actually caught.

From the link

"Last week, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement launched a criminal investigation into the registration forms filed by Strategic Allied Consulting, a private vendor state Republicans hired to register voters."

"Was there registration fraud? Yes," Lux said. "Was there voter fraud? No".

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/in-voter-registration-fraud-case-its-not-mickey-mouse-you-have-to-worry/1255470

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah, that old myth. It's really gotten boring.

The truth usually is.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/in-voter-registration-fraud-case-its-not-mickey-mouse-you-have-to-worry/1255470

That's a pinko paper.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As far as felons, most states allow felons to vote already.

Most states. Not Florida. We have over a million of people that have at some point or another been convicted of a felony that have paid the price for it in terms of doing their time, probation and whatever else was required and yet, they still cannot vote. There's a huge amount of voter suppression going on in this state. Most of the people whose vote is suppressed in Florida could vote if they were living in most other states. But because they live in Florida, they don't get to vote. That's just one of the ways in which Republicans try to cement their hold on power in the Sunshine State.

The truth usually is.

Which election was swung by the voter fraud you claim is raging out there?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Which election was swung by the voter fraud you claim is raging out there?

1960 Presidential election.

[RGinWA 816]

That's a pinko paper.

LOL

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

1960 Presidential election.

A claim that was never actually proven. It is just as credible to claim that Republicans fixed the 2000 (FL) and 2004 (OH) Presidential elections in their favor.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A claim that was never actually proven.

Yet is almost universally accepted as fact, much like global warming.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yet is almost universally accepted as fact, much like global warming.

[RGinWA 816]

A claim that was never actually proven. It is just as credible to claim that Republicans fixed the 2000 (FL) and 2004 (OH) Presidential elections in their favor.

Wait...I thought 2000 was fixed by the Supreme Court? Yet it is what happens when you ask Conservatives to impartially make a significant determination.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wait...I thought 2000 was fixed by the Supreme Court? Yet it is what happens when you ask Conservatives to impartially make a significant determination.

It was fixed by Jeb who ran Florida at the time. The recount and the SCOTUS and whatnot was all just show. Jeb had this fixed for his brother before any of that ever happened.

[RGinWA 816]

It was fixed by Jeb who ran Florida at the time. The recount and the SCOTUS and whatnot was all just show. Jeb had this fixed for his brother before any of that ever happened.

But a recount would have declared Gore a winner I believe.

If that happened we may have not had an Iraq war, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party...and those last two are gifts that keep on giving.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But a recount would have declared Gore a winner I believe.

A newspaper did do a recount after the smoke cleared, and Bush still won.