Court Strikes Down Ariz. Law Requiring Voters to Prove They Are Citizens

[shortylickens]

We can't have that in America because libertarians think it would somehow infringe on their rights.

I'm a libertarian and I'm just fine with it.
And libertarians arent in charge of anything here so how the heck does your argument apply anyway?

 

[werepossum]

You righties are so principled. What ever happened to "I just want jurists who will interpret the law." Well, that's EXACTLY what the 9th circuit did:



I invite you to peruse the LAW:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ih.php#anchor_1973gg

But of course, righties don't actually want the courts enforcing the law as written when the right doesn't like the law. In such cases, the courts should be activist and simply ignore the law and go with popular opinion.

I invite you to peruse the CONSTITUTION. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article II states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In taking upon itself the interpretation of a law in such a way as to take away the States' right to direct their own elections, the 9th Circus has removed this Constitutional protection and quite literally is forcing the States to accept illegal aliens as valid voters to select its electors AND it's state elected positions. Where in the Constitution does the Federal government gain the power to override the Tenth Amendment and dictate this to the States?

Previous expansions of voting rights required Amendments. Now the 9th Circus has determined that enfranchising illegal aliens is such a pressing national need that the Constitution can be dispensed with entirely.

Note also that there is absolutely noting in the section you quoted which says the States may not ask for verification of citizenship. It merely that States must offer the ability to register to vote at the same time one applies for a driver's license, it does NOT state that the requirements to vote must be the same as those to receive a driver's license. Since citizenship is required to vote but not required to receive a driver's license, it has been understood for seventeen years that the two have different requirements. But now the Clowns in Gowns have once again stepped forward to trash the Constitution in favor of rule by magistrates appointed for life.

 

[Pens1566]

^ That's really grasping at straws.

 

[shira]

I invite you to peruse the CONSTITUTION. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article II states:

In taking upon itself the interpretation of a law in such a way as to take away the States' right to direct their own elections, the 9th Circus has removed this Constitutional protection and quite literally is forcing the States to accept illegal aliens as valid voters to select its electors AND it's state elected positions. Where in the Constitution does the Federal government gain the power to override the Tenth Amendment and dictate this to the States?

Previous expansions of voting rights required Amendments. Now the 9th Circus has determined that enfranchising illegal aliens is such a pressing national need that the Constitution can be dispensed with entirely.

Note also that there is absolutely noting in the section you quoted which says the States may not ask for verification of citizenship. It merely that States must offer the ability to register to vote at the same time one applies for a driver's license, it does NOT state that the requirements to vote must be the same as those to receive a driver's license. Since citizenship is required to vote but not required to receive a driver's license, it has been understood for seventeen years that the two have different requirements. But now the Clowns in Gowns have once again stepped forward to trash the Constitution in favor of rule by magistrates appointed for life.

Engage in fantasy much?

How the legislature selects electors (popular vote, majority vote of legislators, or whatever) is the province of the states. But you, of course, like any good activist judge, don't want to restrict yourself to that common-sense reading of the Constitution. You want to insert your OWN meaning. So you somehow come to the conclusion that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" includes rules for voter registration within the state.

Why don't you show us where in the Constitution it says explicitly that the states can burden prospective voters with proof-of-citizenship requirements, in violation of federal law?

 

[werepossum]

Engage in fantasy much?

How the legislature selects electors (popular vote, majority vote of legislators, or whatever) is the province of the states. But you, of course, like any good activist judge, don't want to restrict yourself to that common-sense reading of the Constitution. You want to insert your OWN meaning. So you somehow come to the conclusion that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" includes rules for voter registration within the state.

Why don't you show us where in the Constitution it says explicitly that the states can burden prospective voters with proof-of-citizenship requirements, in violation of federal law?

Note that "my own meaning" was THE accepted meaning prior to this year, otherwise there would have been no need for the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24, and 26th Amendments. Or perhaps you have another reason why these changes were made by Amendment rather than by the much simpler process of making federal laws?

States have dominion over their own electoral processes. Making substantial changes - seizing this power for the federal government - has always required a Constitutional Amendment, with federal laws used only to enforce the protections and rights afforded in the Amended Constitution. This interpretation of a federal law - completely different from the law's actual wording - establishes a newly enfranchised voter, the illegal alien, by striking down ANY requirement to prove citizenship. It's bad enough to try to do this with a federal law; it's inexcusable to do so by interpreting one.

 

[Fern]

You righties are so principled. What ever happened to "I just want jurists who will interpret the law." Well, that's EXACTLY what the 9th circuit did:

Ummm.... That's not at all what "righties" say. Your above phrase is more a defininition of judicial activism. I'm pretty sure what the righties have said they want is strict or literal interpretation.

I invite you to peruse the LAW:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ih.php#anchor_1973gg

But of course, righties don't actually want the courts enforcing the law as written when the right doesn't like the law. In such cases, the courts should be activist and simply ignore the law and go with popular opinion.

I didn't see anything in there plainly stating that states are prevented from requiring proof of citizenship. (Could've missed it though, it's fairly long. I'd rather read the actual case and see how they arrived at this decision.)

Pls quote the section of the law you're referring to.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You argue false equivalencies. Voting is a constitutional right, subject to federal law. States may not create additional restrictions. If they could, we'd have poll taxes and literacy tests as we did before civil rights legislation.

None of the other stuff you offer is a right, at all.

The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is a fundamental Constitutional right yet states have different laws on gun ownership.

'Reasonably' proving your citizenship so you can register to vote is different from 'reasonably' proving that you're 18 yrs old so you can buy a gun is different exactly how?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Standard raving from our resident righties.

Federal voting law states only X, Arizona law demands X+Y, and is therefore invalid. It's a complete no-brainer, as it was for the bunch of lawyers in the Arizona legislature who created the measure purely for the purposes of grandstanding. They knew perfectly well it wouldn't pass judicial review.

What you want is clearly different than what the law provides, so take it up with your congress critters, not with the federal courts...

What exactly is this "Y" you refer to?

You do know that federal law requires that one be a citizen to vote?

Fern

 

[her209]

I didn't see anything in there plainly stating that states are prevented from requiring proof of citizenship. (Could've missed it though, it's fairly long. I'd rather read the actual case and see how they arrived at this decision.)

Pls quote the section of the law you're referring to.

Fern

From my earlier link
http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/nvra/nvra_faq.php

Just did a quick search for instances of the word "citizenship":

# Does Section 5 of the NVRA mandate the use by States of any particular forms or procedures?

Yes. Each State must include a voter registration form as part of an application for a State driver’s license and any application for driver’s license renewal.

The voter registration portion of the application may not require any information that duplicates information required on the driver’s license portion of the application and may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process.

The voter registration application must state each voter eligibility requirement (including citizenship), contain an attestation that the applicant meets each requirement, state the penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application and require the signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury. In addition, the application shall also include statements specifying that: 1) if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and 2) if an applicant does register to vote, the identity of the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.

# What are the requirements for the national mail voter registration application?

Section 9 of the NVRA provides that the national mail voter registration application may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.

The application also must include a statement that specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship), contain an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement and require the signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury. The mail application must also include a statement of the penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application.

The mail application must also include statements specifying that: 1) if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and 2) if an applicant does register to vote, the identity of the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes. The mail application may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.

Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) also requires that the national mail application include certain additional information: First, the question "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is or is not a citizen of the United States. Second, the question "Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether or not the applicant will be 18 years of age or older on election day. Third, the statement, "If you checked 'no' in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form." Fourth, a statement informing the individual that if the form is submitted by mail and the individual is registering for the first time, the appropriate identification required by HAVA must be submitted with the mail-in registration form to avoid the additional identification requirements upon voting for the first time. (See Response to Question 11 below for a list of these forms of identification).

 

[Fern]

From my earlier link
http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/nvra/nvra_faq.php

Just did a quick search for instances of the word "citizenship":

Here's a link to the actual case/full decision:

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_rights/documents/files/Gonzalez9thCircuit-Opinion.pdf

Arizona argued that nothing in the NVRA explicitly prevents states from requiring proof of citizenship (eligiability to vote), the panel did not disagree with that.

Rather, they found other reasons to rule it violated the NVRA (not in the spirit etc.)

So, there is nothing in the NVRA that plainly says that states are prevented from seeking proof etc.

But I think the best way to address this is by amendment (by Congress) to the law. The SCOTUS may take it on, but I don't see why Congress can't easily fix this. Judging by this thread, even many Lefties thought, and seem OK with, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Isn't there some kind of database already? I recall when I went into a bar once they scanned my drivers license to verify it. It could even scan out of state IDs. There must be some kind of database to do this no?

it just needs to determine that there is actually data on that electronic strip. a fake isn't likely to have data. that data is probably in just a handful of formats, as well, so a reader probably doesn't need too much programming.