Posted on 06/29/2015 4:05:28 PM PDT by Nachum
The Supreme Court effectively blocked an attempt by Arizona and Kansas to require voter ID after the high court declined to hear an appeal.
By rejecting a joint appeal by the states, the high court left in place a November 2014 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeals court decided that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that oversees changes to state voter registration procedures, was not required to grant the states' request that proof of citizenship be added to registration requirements.
The Election Assistance Commission was established in 2002 to support and enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002, an act introduced by Ohio Republican Richard Ney who was later convicted on corruption charges.
As Bloomberg explains, this has been a drawn-out case of the two states trying to bring in voter ID requirements.
Arizona and Kansas made that request, and the EAC refused, saying the states didnt need evidence of citizenship to verify voter eligibility. The agency pointed to the federal forms requirement that prospective voters swear that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Of course the supremes turned it down. It wasn’t going to turn the White House into a multicolored exhibit of crassness.
This was too important, so they must have pulled the ‘blackmail’ card again on Roberts.
WE ARE LINING IN A BANANA REPUBLIC!
NOW LOOK HOW AN ACTUAL BANANA REPUBLIC RUNS ELECTIONS:
Voting Procedures in Honduras, a Banana Republic!
(a re-write of excellent post by Gideon300)
I had the opportunity to go watch my wife, a citizen of Honduras, vote in last years presidential election in Tegucigalpa. It was a real eye-opener, and I can only wish the US had such a strict voting process.
Everyone in Honduras is required to vote only in the precinct as indicated on their government issued (free) photo ID card. Every citizen over 18 is required to have an national ID, and everyone with an ID can vote. No one else, and no one is registered as a member of a certain party, merely a citizen. My wifes precinct is Barrio El Bosque, so she was required to go to the Escuela de 14 de Julio (local elementary school) if she wanted to vote.
When we arrived at the voting place there were hundreds of people milling around the street and a long line was waiting to enter. The entire scene was closely watched over by Army and Policía Nacionál to make sure order was kept. For the most part everything was quite orderly, and people were polite to each other even with the shoulder-to-shoulder crowd. After showing ID, passing the guard and entering the school we went to the main table in the courtyard where they ran her ID through a computer and she was given a little slip of paper that indicated her name, her precinct, her mesa (voting area) and linea number (her number on the voter registration list). Every citizen is automatically registered to vote, and their name, Id photo and precinct number is on a list posted in that precinct.
The mesas in this case are rooms in the school, numbered in order to handle the hundreds of people waiting to vote. Her mesa was number 8586, so after finding the room, there was a list of all registered voters beside the door. She checked her line number with photo, 235, to make sure she is at the right door, the man watching the door checked her ID against the list, and let her in. She went to the table inside the room
for a ballot, was checked again for ID and compared it to the info and photo in the registry, was given two ballots, one for president and one for congress, and this time they held her ID while she voted. I was allowed in as a foreign observer, but was not on school tables for privacy, so after voting she deposited her ballots in the appropriate boxes, was given her ID back and we left.
I wanted to take photos but no cameras were allowed anywhere but in the street. No alcohol is sold anywhere in Honduras from Saturday through Monday, the day before and the day after election.
They take voter ID, and potential vote fraud, VERY seriously. All ballots are paper, and all have the candidates info and photo. There are eight official parties in Honduras, and the one with the most votes wins. The police and the army watch the voting very closely. One woman was caught with an extra ballot, and was immediately arrested. The Honduras news media, which is quite politically unbiased, indicated that both local and official foreign observers found only three cases of vote fraud in the entire country.
It was certainly an eye-opener for me! If this is the difference between a the US and a Banana Republic, then Ill take a banana republic election anytime.
I think this has been the worst month since Roe v. Wade.
The Republicans need to get Public Notaries at every voting station where they expect illegals to vote and got the prospective voter to swear that they are a US citizen.
If it turns out that they are not, and have sworn before a PN that they are, and then voted, that would be a clear criminal act of voter fraud.
There are some logistics that need to be worked out on just how to determine who is a legal citizen and who isn’t (when they vote), but it can be worked out.
@#$%^&*!
This encourages the LibTards in Wisconsin to file something similar. We FINALLY got Voter ID passed in our state - and it’ll probably be GONE come November. We haven’t been able to use it even ONCE!
Again, I say: @#$%^&*!
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
Article 3, section 2:
“In ALL cases where a State is a party to the actin, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
I don’t see how a REFUSAL by the supreme court to act as an appellate court in an issue where a STATE is a party has ANY BEARING on ANY STATE.
Tell the inferior court to pound sand, if the supreme court refuses to follow the constitution in matters where a State is a Party, the rulings are meaningless.
tell the inferior court to pound sand!!!
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
The way this month has been going, I expect the SCOTUS to declare the Second Amendment overturned, and there’s not even a case before them on the issue.
I have a feeling that the next gun case is not going to end well for legitimate gun owners.
Supremes Block Voter ID; Decline to hear case
Check out article, and esp. # 4 .
Thanks, Nachum.
If you want to be on or off this Ping List, please frmail me.
However, I simply do not expect SCOTUS to wait for a case. They will announce "We are breaking tradition, and making a pronouncement on an issue of great import. The Second Amendment is hereby nullified."
This sucks, but isn’t the Appellate Court’s decision only valid in the 10th District? States outside that district could still try.
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.