OK, I guess it’s about whether the person has to prove their eligibility to vote. AZ requires proof of eligibility but a judge ruled that the Motor Voter Act governs presidential and federal elections and doesn’t require any proof so states can’t require any proof of voter eligibility for federal elections. So AZ uses a form where people who don’t want to provide proof of citizenship to simply sign their names to a statement saying they are US citizens when they request a federal ballot.
It seems like the federal law has a loophole for people who think they are citizens to vote. Frog in a pot, what part of that federal law is it that you believe closes that loophole?
Thing is, even if there is a provision to punish those who vote after falsely swearing that they are US citizens, by then the damage is done, unless those votes are kept as provisional votes to be counted only AFTER citizenship is proven.
Did the judge rule that HAVA (Help America Vote Act) means that everybody who the federal law says has to be allowed to vote (even those who haven’t proven citizenship) also have to have their votes necessarily counted rather than cast as provisional votes?
Did the judge rule that...everybody who the federal law says has to be allowed to vote (even those who haven’t proven citizenship) also have to have their votes necessarily counted...?
Apparently. This Clinton-nominated judge is arguing the fed act presents the only test a registering voter has to pass. That test is the bare assertion under penalty of perjury as to being a citizen. At the moment, she may be correct.
In 2004, Arizona passed Prop 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or casting a ballot. It reached the USSC which held the NVRA preempts voter registration requirements beyond the bare assertion. It held in part that to allow states to impose additional requirements would allow them to reject voter registrations applicants who met the federal requirements to vote, which would defeat the purpose of the Act. (Alioto and Thomas dissented.)
The result seems to fly in the face of the long-standing view the Constitution grants the power to decide voter qualifications in federal elections to the states. Fortunately, Arizona is well aware of this 10+ year old USSC holding and this case is yet proceeding.
The Congress, however, would be entirely correct at the next Jan 6 Joint Session to conclude on the basis of current events (open borders + the active importation of immigrants) that ignoring the well-established rule by both state and federal governments prohibiting noncitizen voting for fed offices is contrary to common sense. Perhaps most importantly it dramatically increases the risk to national security.
Among other devices, noncitizen voting is just one, the Congress could ask each State to submit the means by which it tested each registrant's assertion.