Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal

Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal

h osted.ap.org

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broad

(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't know if this is good or bad. I see where both sides have valid points. Is this more a state rights issue or a real federal beef?

Will this make a difference in the big picture? If Congress makes new immigration law will this be a mute point?

The facts are that voter fraud is very low. However, this is a border state where there are many more illegals on the ground. So, I can understand their concern.

h osted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

The facts are that voter fraud is very low.

I wish we could be sure of that.
A coworker and his son were both told at the polls that they had already voted. Sure enough, the lines for them were signed, proof that someone else voted in their name. They were allowed to vote, but someone who shouldn't have also voted. Neither one of them lodged a complaint.
How can we be sure of how big a problem it really is? It isn't like someone stealing your TV while you are away from home, you notice that when you try to turn it on and it isn't there anymore, then you report it to the police. You may not even know if there are people voting illegally. Half of registered voters don't even show up at the polls.

facts are our town has 10020 people and 9670 or close to that voted last time. It's illegal for an illegal to vote or be in the country thats a constutional thing not just the law.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal

h osted.ap.org

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broad

(visit the link for the full news article)

One not only needs to prove citizenship and show all sorts of documentation when purchasing a gun, but now prove their sanity. Both acts, voting and gun ownership, are protected under the Constitution, but only one a little more than the other. Figure out which one.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


i can see points for an against it. Obviously, you want to prove the person is eligible to vote and all that, but I have to view it similar to the last minute changed the conservative government made here to a similar rule, immediately making it almost impossible for poor people to vote as many don't have the required ID and it isn't free, and the time table was set that if you didn't have government ID when they announced the change, you wouldn't have it in time to vote. They were taking power and utility bills along with some photo ID though, so it wasn't a total shut out.

But i think a lot of people viewed this as a means to help restrict the voting rights of Mexican Americans, cause we all know they aren't going to be asking Joe Blow Whiteman for his ID and proof. It was a means to stop the poor from voting, just like here in Cannuckistan.

i'm glad it was shot down, there are easier less racist methods of ensuring people are allowed to vote.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns


I don't know if this is good or bad.

this is BAD, voter fraud and illegals voting is all the way round is a bad thing!!!

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

cause we all know they aren't going to be asking Joe Blow Whiteman for his ID and proof.

I've been voting in AZ for over 10 years and EVERY time I have to provide government issued photo ID and they match it to a registered voter list and ensure I am legally entitled to vote in that district and also assigned to that specific voting station and I am "Joe Blow Whiteman".

So please tell me which polling stationed at during which days you "know" this happened. I invite you to accompany me during the next voting in Nov. I'll take you to as many voting stations in AZ as you like and you can then INTELLIGENTLY post about this topic on ATS. And tell us all about the nasty bigot poll workers of Arizona.

Why even have voter ID cards. They mean nothing and represent nothing if nothing is asked for identity verification in getting them.

Really, I'm serious...what's the point? If anyone, citizen or not? Legal or not? If anyone can get one ...it means having one is a waste of money to produce. They may as well just let people print them off their home PC's and publicly acknowledge the fact our entire electoral system has lost all integrity and credibility.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Why even have voter ID cards. They mean nothing and represent nothing if nothing is asked for identity verification in getting them.

Really, I'm serious...what's the point? If anyone, citizen or not? Legal or not? If anyone can get one ...it means having one is a waste of money to produce. They may as well just let people print them off their home PC's and publicly acknowledge the fact our entire electoral system has lost all integrity and credibility.

They might as well just say, 'Vote early and vote often' !

They had groups try to strike down the voter ID law here in Pennsylvania. It is supposed to be in force for the next election, but I would be surprised if there isn't another challenge.

reply to post by butcherguy


Yeah, no kidding. In another thread about Voter Photo ID, I'd shared an article about the International Observers which were invited in to watch for 2012 in some places. They were quoted as being amazed and impressed with how well our system could work on pure trust and a form of the 'honor' system. Apparently both the practice of blank ballots ever being left in a viable form after the polls close and our lack of really verifying who anyone is for the majority of states, left them just about speechless.

They saw it as a real strength to be impressed by. I felt horrible, thinking to myself .....If they only knew how much they can't know with a short trip to observe things on the day it happens....

People look funny at some of Bush's results ...and others look funny at some of Obama's results. The worst thing is, no one on either side can do more than throw out opinions and suspicions. They aren't even permitted to check, as Florida found, who is still on the rolls properly and who is not. Fraud? It isn't how much there is....because the honor system is a joke and a travesty to rely on. It's how much we'll never know for sure on both sides.

Yeah this is messed up.

Means anyone can vote legal or otherwise, in country where a person has to prove who they are to drive, they have to prove who they are to get 'welfare' , and they have to prove who they are to buy a gun.

The SCOTUS is a joke.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal

h osted.ap.org

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broad

(visit the link for the full news article)

You would think the lawyers would have known that the Federal form would kill off any local attempts to change things.

I bet ya they did know.

The whole deal was designed to fail on purpose.

It's an old trick to keep 'people' on the wishful thinking wagon.

Arizona has many Liberal deep operatives in government.

Don't forget that Janet Napolitano was the Governor there and an appointed U.S. District Attorney. She was also Arizona Attorney General.

Lots of raving jealousy still exists between Her and Her adversaries.

She has a hidden agenda to get even with Her 'enemies'.

I think some of the current conservative politicians there are being blackmailed.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

Is this more a state rights issue or a real federal beef?

Since it's a federal law the states can't mess around with it.

The court said that Arizona cannot add requirements to those in place for obtaining a federal voter ID. Which makes sense. It is a federal law, states cannot "adjust" federal laws.


The court also said that Arizona can request that the feds include state specific requirements.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court. Other states have already done so, Scalia said.

The Election Assistance Commission "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 completed federal form," Scalia said.

hosted.ap.org...

Arizona can request that citizenship documentation be required...for Arizona.

reply to post by neo96

Means anyone can vote legal or otherwise, in country where a person has to prove who they are to drive, they have to prove who they are to get 'welfare' , and they have to prove who they are to buy a gun.

Ok, did you read what you just wrote? Did you?

Now, what's the most common way to register to vote? At the DMV, what did you say about proving who they are to drive? That's right, it's already in place so they don't need to do it TWICE in order to vote.

reply to post by HauntWok


I know what I wrote and 'most common way' ?

A lot of people register at their local court house I know I did.

Then there is the last part of my comment that says people have to prove who they are not once every single time they buy 'something'.

And people cry about 'citizenship proof' the SCOTUS IS A JOKE

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns


I don't know if this is good or bad. I see where both sides have valid points. Is this more a state rights issue or a real federal beef?

Will this make a difference in the big picture? If Congress makes new immigration law will this be a mute point?

The facts are that voter fraud is very low. However, this is a border state where there are many more illegals on the ground. So, I can understand their concern.

h osted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't agree that voter fraud is necessarily low, as there have been several reported cases recently, and god knows haw many unreported.

That being said, this is bad period. Whether you look at it from the state point of view or the federal, the fact remains that to vote in federal elections one must be a citizen of the U.S. Asking for proof of that citizenship is a no brainer.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

i can see points for an against it. Obviously, you want to prove the person is eligible to vote and all that, but I have to view it similar to the last minute changed the conservative government made here to a similar rule, immediately making it almost impossible for poor people to vote as many don't have the required ID and it isn't free, and the time table was set that if you didn't have government ID when they announced the change, you wouldn't have it in time to vote. They were taking power and utility bills along with some photo ID though, so it wasn't a total shut out.

But i think a lot of people viewed this as a means to help restrict the voting rights of Mexican Americans, cause we all know they aren't going to be asking Joe Blow Whiteman for his ID and proof. It was a means to stop the poor from voting, just like here in Cannuckistan.

i'm glad it was shot down, there are easier less racist methods of ensuring people are allowed to vote.

No, it was a means to stop the illegals from voting. I know the cost varies from state to state, but in VA your license or state I.D. card are pretty easy to get, and less than $20. If your ability to vote is not worth a $20 I.D. that you need for a lot of other things as well then it is your priorities that have stopped you from voting, not registration laws.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Why even have voter ID cards. They mean nothing and represent nothing if nothing is asked for identity verification in getting them.

Really, I'm serious...what's the point? If anyone, citizen or not? Legal or not? If anyone can get one ...it means having one is a waste of money to produce. They may as well just let people print them off their home PC's and publicly acknowledge the fact our entire electoral system has lost all integrity and credibility.

They might as well just say, 'Vote early and vote often' !

They had groups try to strike down the voter ID law here in Pennsylvania. It is supposed to be in force for the next election, but I would be surprised if there isn't another challenge.

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

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by neo96

 

Means anyone can vote legal or otherwise, in country where a person has to prove who they are to drive, they have to prove who they are to get 'welfare' , and they have to prove who they are to buy a gun.

Ok, did you read what you just wrote? Did you?

Now, what's the most common way to register to vote? At the DMV, what did you say about proving who they are to drive? That's right, it's already in place so they don't need to do it TWICE in order to vote.

It isn't in place. If DMV were the ONLY place you could register you may have a point, but that is not the case. You can register to vote in my state right on the side of the street with nothing more that an electric bill.