Supreme Court to review voter ID law in Arizona, other states

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this morning to consider how far Arizona — and other states — can go in requiring voters to prove citizenship when registering.

In a brief order, the justices agreed to review a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Arizona is required to accept a form prepared by the federal Election Assistance Commission and allow people to register. That form does not mandate proof of citizenship but instead simply requires a signed avowal the person is eligible to vote.

At the heart of the fight is a 2004 voter-approved measure which requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls.

The courts sided with the state on the ID portion. But they rejected the citizenship proof.

In one of those lower rulings, Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th circuit pointed out that Congress mandated creation of a specific form designed to allow individuals to register to vote by mail. That form does not include a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

What that means, the judge said, is Arizona election officials have to register those people who sign up using that federal form, even if they do not provide the state-mandated identification.

Arizona has remained free, however, to continue to demand proof of citizenship from those who go to state offices and register using a state-provided form.

In seeking review, attorneys for the state argue that the mandate for proof of citizenship "imposes a minimal burden on a limited number of persons and furthers the federal government's and the states' broad interest in protecting election integrity.''

But foes, lead by the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, said Congress enacted the National Voting Rights Act because "unfair and discriminatory voter registration laws had depressed voter registration, particularly among minority and low-income voters.'' What Congress wanted, they told the court, was a uniform way that voters could register.

It was that law that directed the Election Assistance Commission to create the federal form that does not require proof of citizenship.

” The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[1] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Birth - “All persons born or naturalized” “are citizens” of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
“Race, color, or previous condition of servitude” - (15th Amendment, 1870)
“On account of sex” - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) “By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” - (24th Amendment, 1964)
(For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

“Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age” (26th Amendment, 1971).
In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The “right to vote” is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the “right to vote” is perhaps better understood, in layman’s terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the “right to vote” for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.