Arizona voter registration law struck down

[diverdog]

By Scotus 7-2

[KantoSooner]

haven't read this one. Do you know the grounds? I really don't get the big deal on ID'ing voters. It's like buying a beer is of greater import to our society than voting for the next president.

[diverdog]

haven't read this one. Do you know the grounds? I really don't get the big deal on ID'ing voters. It's like buying a beer is of greater import to our society than voting for the next president.

It center around Arizona requirements to show proof of citizenship and a federal law that says you do need to show proof of citizenship and that this law supercedes state laws. The ruling is the right ruling but the federal law needs to changed. I have no issue with voter ID.

[REDREX]

Why should you have to be a citizen to vote ?-----Lets just let anyone that feels like it have a ballot

[rock on sooner]

Wonder if Brewer will shake her finger in SCOTUS's faces?...

[olevetonahill]

Wonder if Brewer will shake her finger in SCOTUS's faces?...

Prolly shake her dick at him since its moren likely bigger than his.

[Midtowner]

It doesn't say you don't have to be a citizen to vote, just that you don't have to affirmatively prove you're a citizen to vote. The Court also said that the state wasn't prohibited from using databases already in its possession to ferret out individuals who wouldn't be allowed to vote.

[KantoSooner]

Let's just say that a state made everyone carry a voter ID card to the polling place. And that such cards could be procured at your local tag agency, for free.

Everybody good with that? Or is the act of travelling one time in your miserable life to a local tag agency to get a photo taken too damn much trouble? (We're getting very close to the line where I would opine that those who can't be bothered to do the minutest thing in order to vote probably shouldn't be voting anyway.)

[XingTheRubicon]

Let's just say that a state made everyone carry a voter ID card to the polling place. And that such cards could be procured at your local tag agency, for free.

Everybody good with that? Or is the act of travelling one time in your miserable life to a local tag agency to get a photo taken too damn much trouble? (We're getting very close to the line where I would opine that those who can't be bothered to do the minutest thing in order to vote probably shouldn't be voting anyway.)

Racist

[Midtowner]

Let's just say that a state made everyone carry a voter ID card to the polling place. And that such cards could be procured at your local tag agency, for free.

Everybody good with that? Or is the act of travelling one time in your miserable life to a local tag agency to get a photo taken too damn much trouble? (We're getting very close to the line where I would opine that those who can't be bothered to do the minutest thing in order to vote probably shouldn't be voting anyway.)

I'm not sure AZ has a tag agency, but I'd have no problem with that assuming that there are a number of ways to prove who you are to get that card. We shouldn't be in the business of denying a 90-year old woman a voting ID because she doesn't have a driver's license or other state-issued ID card.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not sure AZ has a tag agency, but I'd have no problem with that assuming that there are a number of ways to prove who you are to get that card. We shouldn't be in the business of denying a 90-year old woman a
voting ID because she doesn't have a driver's license or other state-issued ID card.

This makes NO sense
If she has to have a Voter ID card is that not STATE ISSUED?

[REDREX]

Like they say in Chicago "Vote early and vote often"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why should you have to be a citizen to vote ?-----Lets just let anyone that feels like it have a ballotWe kinda do anyway. Might as well just throw in the towel, and prepare mentally for the inevitable full-blown socialism/fascism.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It doesn't say you don't have to be a citizen to vote, just that you don't have to affirmatively prove you're a citizen to vote. The Court also said that the state wasn't prohibited from using databases already in its possession to ferret out individuals who wouldn't be allowed to vote.

So basically, the laws are already in place so there's no need to create a new one?

[KantoSooner]

I'm not sure AZ has a tag agency, but I'd have no problem with that assuming that there are a number of ways to prove who you are to get that card. We shouldn't be in the business of denying a 90-year old woman a voting ID because she doesn't have a driver's license or other state-issued ID card.

Why not? Is it really too much trouble for her to contact someone (a social worker, her eldercare ride coordinator, the county, whatever, no one lives alone on an island) and, with four years to get this onerous task done, to make one trip down to whatever office does this kind of stuff in her jurisdiction? And then keep track of the SOB so she'll have it when she needs it?

This is butterfly ballot stuff: if you're so goddamned stupid that you can't work this out, I frankly don't want you to vote. If you can't navigate a pathetically simple procedure like the above, you are demonstrably mentally incompetent and should not be allowed to vote. (or to walk around outside without a minder).

As a law school professor of mine once told another student who was upset that a person who'd suffered a horrible injury (I think it was the kid who jumped his bike into the vat of boiling asphalt, remember that one from first year Torts?) could not recover against anyone, "How stupid can a person be and still live?"

[olevetonahill]

This makes NO sense
If she has to have a Voter ID card is that not STATE ISSUED?


So basically, the laws are already in place so there's no need to create a new one?
I already showed him how ignernt he was about that statement. As usual He went and Hid.

[Midtowner]

This makes NO sense
If she has to have a Voter ID card is that not STATE ISSUED?

Sure, but why not accept a utility bill, a medical record, or some other proof that she exists?

[Midtowner]

So basically, the laws are already in place so there's no need to create a new one?

Yeah. I'd be surprised if the state or SOMEONE didn't have access to a database as to citizenship/immigration status. The opinion told them it'd be fine if the state just verified citizenship on its own, but not fine if they put the burden of proof on the applicant to prove they're a citizen. That's really a pretty good balance and probably the right call.

[okie52]

Ted Cruz Plans Immigration Amendment To Reverse Supreme Court Ruling On Voter Registration

SAHIL KAPUR JUNE 17, 2013, 4:48 PM 376

In an effort to counteract a Supreme Court decision Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he intends to file an amendment to immigration reform legislation that allows states to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

He billed his amendment as a response to the 7-2 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, which struck down an Arizona law that required people to prove their citizenship in order to register to vote. The Court held that the state law was in violation of federal law.

“This hole in federal statutory law allows non-citizens to register and thereby encourages voter fraud,” Cruz wrote on his Facebook page. “I will file a commonsense amendment to the immigration bill that permits states to require I.D. before registering voters.”

Cruz’s spokeswoman said the language of the amendment hasn’t been drafted, but she made clear that it “will specify that the federal Motor Voter law does not preempt state laws that require ID for voter registration.”

“The intent is to be sure states can pass laws ensuring only citizens can vote in order to limit voter fraud,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an email. “To make sure people are who they say they are.”

The amendment to immigration legislation has the potential to divide pro-reform senators, as the issue of voter ID laws tends to break down largely along party lines. Cruz has supported elements of reform to overhaul and expand legal immigration but strongly opposes a path to citizenship for people in the country illegally.

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act requires states to accept a federal form that lets people register to vote by attesting under oath that they are citizens. The Court’s decision Monday said it preempts state laws like the Arizona statute in question.

Ted's working on it....

[Midtowner]

Why not? Is it really too much trouble for her to contact someone (a social worker, her eldercare ride coordinator, the county, whatever, no one lives alone on an island) and, with four years to get this onerous task done, to make one trip down to whatever office does this kind of stuff in her jurisdiction? And then keep track of the SOB so she'll have it when she needs it?

Obtaining a voter ID shouldn't be MORE onerous for a 90 year old non-driver than it is for a 30-something year old working person.


This is butterfly ballot stuff: if you're so goddamned stupid that you can't work this out, I frankly don't want you to vote. If you can't navigate a pathetically simple procedure like the above, you are demonstrably mentally incompetent and should not be allowed to vote. (or to walk around outside without a minder).

Hey, I'd be 100% with you if we required a HS Diploma or GED to vote. I'd even be fine with requiring at least a bachelor's degree. I think something like that would more fit with the founders' intent that the electorate be from the educated/landed class, but something tells me that wouldn't jive too well with the 14th Amendment today and generally stupid tests have already been declared unconstitutional, so we're left with the good 'ol butterfly ballot as a defacto literacy test.


As a law school professor of mine once told another student who was upset that a person who'd suffered a horrible injury (I think it was the kid who jumped his bike into the vat of boiling asphalt, remember that one from first year Torts?) could not recover against anyone, "How stupid can a person be and still live?"

Contributory negligence... but torts and voting rights aren't cut from the same cloth. From a public policy standpoint, we want to make access of everyone to the voting booth something we'll bend over backwards to give you. Now, that's not the recent policy of the Republican Party, who in the name of chasing down something which really isn't a problem is really just seeking to block certain people from being able to vote. I have no problem with the voter ID in principle, but if you aren't at least a little intellectually honest about what's really going on, then you've sipped too much of the kool aid.

It's just going to be a game of wackamole though.. Dems are excellent organizers and will have those 90 year old ladies loaded up in vans with the proper papers so they can go to the polls in no time flat.

[Midtowner]

Ted's working on it....

So we need a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this solution in search of a problem approach while Citizen's United, almost uniformly hated by the American people is no big deal?

[okie52]

So we need a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this solution in search of a problem approach while Citizen's United, almost uniformly hated by the American people is no big deal?

Absolutely....a ****ing utility bill doesn't prove you're a citizen.

[KantoSooner]

I'll be interested to see what Cruz' reasoning is as far as how his amendment will 'reverse' a SCOTUS decision.

[KantoSooner]

Obtaining a voter ID shouldn't be MORE onerous for a 90 year old non-driver than it is for a 30-something year old working person.

***In my hypothetical, it wouldn't be.***



Hey, I'd be 100% with you if we required a HS Diploma or GED to vote. I'd even be fine with requiring at least a bachelor's degree. I think something like that would more fit with the founders' intent that the electorate be from the educated/landed class, but something tells me that wouldn't jive too well with the 14th Amendment today and generally stupid tests have already been declared unconstitutional, so we're left with the good 'ol butterfly ballot as a defacto literacy test.

***and, in my hypo, the act of getting it together to get said ID would be pretty much the same thing.***



Contributory negligence... but torts and voting rights aren't cut from the same cloth. From a public policy standpoint, we want to make access of everyone to the voting booth something we'll bend over backwards to give you. Now, that's not the recent policy of the Republican Party, who in the name of chasing down something which really isn't a problem is really just seeking to block certain people from being able to vote. I have no problem with the voter ID in principle, but if you aren't at least a little intellectually honest about what's really going on, then you've sipped too much of the kool aid.

***Don't go technical on me. The point was that stupidity has its own set of life penalties. If you're too stupid to get registered and carry an ID to the votiing place, then I'm not troubled with you not having benefit of the franchise. ***
***and, yes, the main push behind this is to disenfranchise black and poor voters. On the other hand, positive voter ID is a damn good idea whatever the motive behind it originally was. Would you be against anti-drunk driving laws simply because Methodist Church ladies wanted said laws to discourage drinking in general?***

It's just going to be a game of wackamole though.. Dems are excellent organizers and will have those 90 year old ladies loaded up in vans with the proper papers so they can go to the polls in no time flat.

IN which case its no burden at all, is it?

BTW, are the dems still using those guys who were giving the wino's booze and cigs and then bussing them over to polling places? I really enjoyed that video. I'm sure Obama is proud that he was worth at least two shots of Mad Dog 20/20 and a coupla Kools.

[okie52]

The SCOTUS decision I read was stating that the state could not "add to" federal voting requirements...if the amendment increases the federal voting requirements I don't see where that in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling.

[KantoSooner]

That could be a way.

I'm thinking, though, that the original Voters Rights Act would have language that would have to be gotten around. And I'm too damn lazy right now to look it up.

[Midtowner]

Absolutely....a ****ing utility bill doesn't prove you're a citizen.

It proves you live somewhere, and that's the best some people are going to be able to do. A 90-year-old non-driver who never had any plans to travel internationally (needing a passport) isn't going to have a lot of ways to prove who she is. As far as proving you're a citizen, the burden should be on the state to prove you're not. I imagine the states already have or could easily obtain a database of citizens and non-citizens and use that to screen out non-citizens. In fact, the opinion said that'd be fine.

[Midtowner]

IN which case its no burden at all, is it?

BTW, are the dems still using those guys who were giving the wino's booze and cigs and then bussing them over to polling places? I really enjoyed that video. I'm sure Obama is proud that he was worth at least two shots of Mad Dog 20/20 and a coupla Kools.

Well if 'pubs aren't doing that, they suck at GOTV.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Decision written by Scalia!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It's already against the law to vote in a federal election if you are not a U.S. citizen, without Arizona's unconstitutional law.

[okie52]

It proves you live somewhere, and that's the best some people are going to be able to do. A 90-year-old non-driver who never had any plans to travel internationally (needing a passport) isn't going to have a lot of ways to prove who she is. As far as proving you're a citizen, the burden should be on the state to prove you're not. I imagine the states already have or could easily obtain a database of citizens and non-citizens and use that to screen out non-citizens. In fact, the opinion said that'd be fine.

Living in the US doesn't mean ****...we already know there are at least 11,000,000 doing that illegally....I disagree with the burden of proof being on the state. You have to prove your eligibility/qualifications in many walks of life.

[okie52]

It's already against the law to vote in a federal election if you are not a U.S. citizen, without Arizona's unconstitutional law.

The idea, it would seem, was to prevent that from happening.

[olevetonahill]

Sure, but why not accept a utility bill, a medical record, or some other proof that she exists?

So Ya sayin just let her use an electric bill to Vote or to get a Voter ID Card?

And again you make NO ****ING SENSE, If shes there she Obviously EXIST .

[olevetonahill]

Wait a M inute matlock may be onto sompun here, Ya know the Blind Hog finds an occasional acorn?

How bout If the Business's of the country Need to use E-Verify why not the Polling places?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Absolutely....a ****ing utility bill doesn't prove you're a citizen.

Neither does a drivers license. Green card holders have licenses that look identical to those of citizens.

Moreover, once a green card holder becomes a citizen, he/she is not directed to update info with DMV.

[okie52]

Neither does a drivers license. Green card holders have licenses that look identical to those of citizens.

Moreover, once a green card holder becomes a citizen, he/she is not directed to update info with DMV.


There are all kinds of designations that can be put on a DL. Underage in OK has the DLs vertical until they reach 21. Some states have proposed using colored markings for illegals.

Doesn't take much to ferret out the illegals.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

There are all kinds of designations that can be put on a DL. Underage in OK has the DLs vertical until they reach 21. Some states have proposed using colored markings for illegals.

Doesn't take much to ferret out the illegals.


I'm talking about those in Arizona who are legal permanent resident aliens.

[sappstuf]

I'll be interested to see what Cruz' reasoning is as far as how his amendment will 'reverse' a SCOTUS decision.

Scalia voted down the Arizona law and wrote the majority decision. He might have did that on purpose so he could write the decision and give Arizona a roadmap of what to do next.



However, Scalia’s opinion had some important caveats. He made it clear that the NVRA preemption applies only to the federal voter-registration form, not Arizona’s state-registration form. According to the majority, “state-developed forms may require information the Federal Form does not.” So anyone registering to vote in Arizona using the state’s voter-registration form is still going to have to provide proof of citizenship. The Court also carefully noted that the NVRA does not “preclude States from ‘deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.’”

The final three pages of Scalia’s opinion lay out a roadmap whereby Arizona can get around this ruling. In 2005, Arizona asked the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency responsible for the federal voter-registration form, to “include the evidence-of-citizenship requirement among the state-specific instructions on the Federal Form” for any residents of Arizona. The EAC’s four commissioners split 2 to 2, so the agency took no action. “We are aware of nothing that prevents Arizona from renewing its request,” Scalia suggests.

If the EAC refuses the request or “its inaction persists,” Scalia writes, then Arizona can sue the EAC and establish in court that “a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefor under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete evidence requirement on the Federal Form.”

The Justice went so far as to say that Arizona could claim the EAC’s refusal is “arbitrary” since the agency “has accepted a similar instruction requested by Louisiana.” In fact, footnote 11 helpfully instructs that the “EAC recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver’s license, ID card, or Social Security number to attach additional documentation” to the federal voter-registration form.

Finally, notice what is missing in this opinion: any talk of the proof requirement’s being “discriminatory.” This was a claim about NVRA preemption — period! There was no claim that the requirement was racially or ethnically discriminatory because (1) that claim got thrown out in the lower court and (2) the elections held while the requirement was in place showed it had no discriminatory effect.

[KantoSooner]

Well if 'pubs aren't doing that, they suck at GOTV.



Gid dimmit, Mid, defending buying votes by saying, "Yeah, but everybody does it" is a not a defense, really. And so far, I have only seen the one widespread incident (I think it was ACORN people in '08)...and they weren't organizing McCain voters....

[olevetonahill]

Gid dimmit, Mid, defending buying votes by saying, "Yeah, but everybody does it" is a not a defense, really. And so far, I have only seen the one widespread incident (I think it was ACORN people in '08)...and they weren't organizing McCain voters....

If you aint noticed, matlock likes to run his mouth about **** he knows nothing about except what he can learn from searching Google. and When he is proven wrong he runs away and hides till he can mouth off in some other threda,

[Harry Beanbag]

Man, if it ever came to full blown insurrection, Arizona would be the modern day South Carolina and be the first to secede. Arizona has been continually bent over the last few years for simply trying to enforce federal law that the federal government refuses to enforce. Federal supremacy continues to be ruled in favor of despite them having no intention of actually exerting that supremacy in any arena except the Supreme Court building.

[champions77]

I'm not sure AZ has a tag agency, but I'd have no problem with that assuming that there are a number of ways to prove who you are to get that card. We shouldn't be in the business of denying a 90-year old woman a voting ID because she doesn't have a driver's license or other state-issued ID card.

This ID business would not be so important if we knew orgainizations like ACORN were not out registering Mickey Mouse and Santa Clause to vote. But since we know this occurs, and we know folks have voted twice or more in the past, and that dead people have voted in Chicago for years, the utmost effort to insure the accuracy of the vote has to be maintained, and the best way to do that is to have folks show an ID. Don't have and ID and voting is important to you? Then go get one. My gosh, have we as a society become this lazy and irresponsible? I have a hard time believing that in today's world, that anyone does not have an ID.

I think it's easy to state that the factions that complain the most about voter ID laws...are the very ones that have been guilty of illegal voting. Amazing how that works.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This ID business would not be so important if we knew orgainizations like ACORN were not out registering Mickey Mouse and Santa Clause to vote. But since we know this occurs, and we know folks have voted twice or more in the past, and that dead people have voted in Chicago for years, the utmost effort to insure the accuracy of the vote has to be maintained, and the best way to do that is to have folks show an ID. Don't have and ID and voting is important to you? Then go get one. My gosh, have we as a society become this lazy and irresponsible? I have a hard time believing that in today's world, that anyone does not have an ID.

I think it's easy to state that the factions that complain the most about voter ID laws...are the very ones that have been guilty of illegal voting. Amazing how that works.Kinda like the democrats accusing republicans of the "politics of personal destruction"