Posted on 04/18/2024 10:51:12 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
As it stands, liberal Arizona voting laws have paved the way for non-citizens, whether they are legal or not, to register for and cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential election.
U.S. Air Force master sergeant Nick Kupper, who is one of several state legislature candidates vying for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives’ District 25. While the voting laws do not affect his run for office, he is gravely concerned about the upcoming presidential race.
“In Arizona,” Kupper said, “even if the state can’t verify whether you’re a citizen, people can still assert that they are citizens.” While these individuals are not allowed to vote in Arizona elections, they can still vote in the federal election. “They can still vote for the president,” he explained.
In an April 16 post on X, Kupper pointed out that “In 2020 Biden got 73% of the federal only votes & Trump lost AZ by 10K votes. There are now over 32K federal only voters in AZ which would give Biden 15K more votes than Trump in 2024.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Well, to be fair, Gayway Pundit is a GloboHomo stalking horse that mostly posts low effort clickbait ripped off from other sources. As in this case, a twitter thread.
They’ve “broken” squat. Zilch. Nada.
Weird that its become so popular among a certain demographic here.
“Arizona Proof of Citizenship Requirement
A person who submits valid proof of citizenship with their voter registration form (and is otherwise an eligible registrant) is entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections in which they are eligible. A.R.S. § 16-101.
A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a “federal only” voter). In April 2022, the legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote in presidential elections (2492); however, this law has not yet gone into effect.
A “federal only” voter will become eligible to vote a “full ballot” in all federal, state, and local elections if they later provide valid proof of citizenship to the appropriate County Recorder’s office.”
https://azsos.gov/elections/voters/registering-vote/registration-requirements
“Nationwide, U.S. Citizenship is a requirement to vote in state and federal elections. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, people may vote in federal elections by attesting to U.S. citizenship under penalty for perjury without providing documentary proof. “
https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/issues/proof-of-citizenship
“The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 (P.L. 103-31) establishes certain voter registration provisions for federal elections (see BACKGROUND). Most states, including Connecticut, have adopted these provisions and extended them to state and local elections. Neither the NVRA nor Connecticut law requires DPOC for voter registration.
While the NVRA does not specifically authorize or prohibit DPOC, it does set parameters on the documentation that states may request for registering voters for federal elections. It also requires applicants to sign under penalty of perjury that they meet voter eligibility requirements, including citizenship.
At least four states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas) have enacted laws establishing DPOC voter registration requirements. In recent years, however, a handful of federal lawsuits, including one that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, have successfully challenged the application of these laws to federal elections. Generally speaking, the courts have held that with respect to elections for federal office, state DPOC laws are preempted by the NVRA under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I. § 4, cl. 1). More specifically, they have found that (1) states have not shown that DPOC requirements are “necessary” to establish U.S. citizenship and (2) attestation under penalty of perjury is the presumptive amount of information necessary for state election officials to carry out their eligibility-assessment and registration duties....
In 2004, Arizona voters passed a ballot initiative requiring individuals to provide DPOC when registering to vote and voting in federal, state, and local elections. A group of Arizona residents and nonprofit organizations challenged the law, which required election officials to reject any voter registration application, including a Federal Form, unaccompanied by DPOC. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which examined whether the NVRA provision that requires states to “accept and use” the Federal Form preempted Arizona law (Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., (ITCA) 133 S.Ct. 2247 (2013)).
In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that Arizona’s DPOC requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants and federal elections, was preempted. In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that under the Elections Clause, Congress has the power to preempt state laws concerning when, where, and how federal elections are held, including registration procedures.
The court acknowledged that under the Qualifications Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 2, cl. 1), (1) states have the authority to determine voter qualifications for federal elections and (2) the NVRA authorizes them to create state-specific voter registration forms, which may require information in addition to that which the Federal Form requires. However, the Court held that states nonetheless must accept the Federal Form:
No matter what procedural hurdles a State’s own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available. Arizona’s reading would permit a State to demand of Federal Form applicants every additional piece of information the state requires on its state-specific form. If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function and would be a feeble means of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office (internal quotation marks omitted).
The court also held that Arizona could petition the EAC to add state-specific instructions to its Federal Form so that it could include information it deemed necessary to determine voter eligibility, such as DPOC. If the EAC refused, Arizona could seek judicial review under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to “establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete evidence requirement on the Federal Form.”...
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, six states are exempt from the NVRA because they have had, continuously since August 1, 1994, (1) Election Day registration (Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) or (2) no voter registration requirements (North Dakota). The remaining 44 states and Washington D.C. are covered.”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0323.htm
FWIW, Arizona is one of the few states that have TRIED to require documentation of citizenship!
However, it is against the law - federal law - to require someone PROVE they are citizens to vote. HUGE loophole!
There's a segment of FR that can't separate the important facts from the made up stuff at GP. So they just ignore the important facts and spam the thread.
Agreed. One must consider the source, and that was the first thing I did.
Also they should have seats in Congress taken away.
ICE will be monitoring all voting precincts.
It’s a secret, we don’t want to spook them
So ignore these threads rather than virtue grandstanding. Nobody forced you to open the thread. You don’t think these invaders are going to vote?
They have been one of the first on the J-6 bombs.
Didn't realize that your permission was required before posting on "these threads".
I promise it'll never happen again.
Nobody has a duty to ignore a thread, just because you say so.
Sometimes one has to open it and read it, to know what it’s about.
You have quite an exorbitant opinion of yourself and your ‘power’ here.
I don’t really care that anyone here gets ‘mad’ at me.
I follow *individuals* who have caused me to respect their intelligence and thought - not websites, newspapers or television news.
If that doesn’t please someone here, they just have to live with it. Anonymous criticism of me is pretty far down on my personal ‘concern list’.
You haven’t identified anything misleading. Several people have provided the same info from other sources. Yet you keep telling the same story. I take it you’re a troll.
And several have provided information that discredits the article.
It’s a Free Republic, after all.
Anyone who doubts it should stand up in a college auditorium class and say “I’m for Israel.”
Or say you want fair, honest elections with photo ID required and old registration records updated and corrected.
Or say you don’t want trans and gender change surgery for kids at a school meeting.
If it doesn’t look like the Norman Rockwell Saturday Evening Post cover of the man standing up to state his opinion then it’s on.
https://www.art.com/products/p53766606015-sa-i5446981/norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-february-21-1943.htm?RFID=622002&campaignid=1
I don't see any. Which posts were they?
What are some examples of false news on GP?
If the illegals turn a state from red to blue, is not counting the electoral votes an equitable solution?
We’ve already seen Democrat organization operatives telling migrants coming in at the border to vote for Biden. EXPLICITLY telling them this!!!
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.