Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal

reply to post by Majiq1

This SCOTUS ruling affects every state that would want to make potential voters show legal status

Only states that want to make their own rules about a federal program.

reply to post by Majiq1

You can register to vote in my state right on the side of the street with nothing more that an electric bill.

And, if your state wanted to require proof of citizenship for that they could.

Less than 5 percent of people registering to vote in Arizona use the federal form, said Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett. The rest register through the state, meaning they will continue to be asked to provide proof of citizenship when signing up to vote.

hosted.ap.org...

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


The same Effing SCOTUS that imagined a tax in the individual mandate, when PENALTY is spelled out 23 times. By the way, it will still be a cold, cold day in hell before the IRS gets my health info no matter what that retard Roberts said. POS bastiche.

Heard about this on the radio this morning. Part of the problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that they are relying on a 1993 Motor Voter law. The synopsis of the law says that the only thing anyone has to sign is a federal form with their signature "with the penalty of perjury" if they are not who they claim to be. The law asks for no forms of identification to vet a person. I find this type of "honor" system to be problematic with the claims every year of voter fraud. With the scandal of ACORN being indicted in several states for voter fraud, I would think that getting a little tougher on the rules to vote is a must.

Some will say this disenfranchises minorities and the poor, but there are many avenues for persons to obtain the proper ID to vote. I don't think I have met a single person that has never been able to get a drivers license or a non-drivers license. We have so many hoops to jump through just to drive a car and to board a jetliner, but we can't make sure that citizens are the only ones voting? I mean, we are only talking about voting for the most powerful person in the world...

reply to post by Phage


And what happens when an election is decided by less than 5%?? I, for one, would like to know that my vote was not meaningless.

reply to post by HomerinNC


why dont we just set up polling stations in Mexico? or France? let the world elect our leader. You dont have to be a citizen...

Hell I bet you need to show proof of membership to get into the YMCA

It's funny how all of the 'voter fraud' people are all up in arms about voter ID, even though that sort of thing is not mentioned in the Constitution. BUT, any type of back-ground check is waaayyy off limits, because the Constitution says any and all should be able to get a gun. Those 'patriotic' Americans seems to support the Hell out of the Constitution when it's supporting their argument. Then they forget about the Constitution when it conflicts with their ideas of how things should be. I think that's called Hypocrisy. But I could be wrong. The word 'Hypocrisy' is not in the Constituion.

reply to post by TownCryer


Who said they were against background checks?

reply to post by bmullini

And what happens when an election is decided by less than 5%?? I, for one, would like to know that my vote was not meaningless.

You assume that 5% is all voting the same way? Why?
You assume that 5% are voting illegally?

The number of people using the federal form, how they might vote, if they are illegal, and how it is likely to affect Arizona specifically are all moot points for either side of the arguement.

To vote in a federal election you must be a citizen of the United States either by birth or by naturalization. That being one of the requirements, it is not too much to ask, and should be required that any potential voter show proof of citizenship, period.