Posted on 10/01/2026 10:55:19 AM PDT by John Semmens
In a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database can be used by states to identify non-citizens on their voter rolls. The unsigned majority opinion said "the claims made by the voters who challenged the use of SAVE lack merit. All of the claimants have IDs that can be used to get ballots they can cast. Using SAVE is an option that states may use if they wish to exclude non-citizens from their voter rolls. Their is no statutory mandate for prohibiting use of this option."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed, writing "the Court is misusing its powers. Voting is a human right that supersedes any statute or constitution. Furthermore, voters are entitled to a secret ballot. Any requirement mandating that a voter be identified before casting a ballot violates this sacred right. Denying this sacred right would open the door for a tyrannical regime to track down voters identified as having voted against the regime or its candidates."
In related news, panel of three judges on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to block a lower court ruling that had granted a preliminary injunction against Ohio's voter ID law in August. The majority rejected the arguments of Red Wine & Blue and the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans that the Ohio statute violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), asserting that "the NVRA instructs states to require only the minimum amount of information necessary" and arguing that "a signature asserting citizenship under penalty of perjury is sufficient." The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the states to set their rules for elections under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Circuit Judge Kevin G. Ritz dissented, saying that "individuals who wanted to be registered to vote without providing proof of citizenship were still harmed even though they were ultimately able to register to vote by complying with Ohio's statutory requirements."
In other related news, the California Supreme Court ruled that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco must return the 650,000 ballots from the Proposition 50 special election that he seized. Bianco had cited a discrepancy of 45,800 votes as grounds for his investigation of possible vote fraud. The Court determined that "State Attorney General Rob Bonta has full authority over every law-enforcement official in California. Thus, Sheriff Bianco is obligated to follow the orders given to him by the Attorney General." Gov. Gavin Newsom called "Bianco's suggestion that there may have been fraud is unsupported by any evidence. I have also just signed legislation that will bar anyone from questioning the announced election results made by authorized state election officials."
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
You would think this is a no-brainer. And yet, there are three no-brains on the SCOTUS who think otherwise.
Semi-News/Semi Satire??
” I have also just signed legislation that will bar anyone from questioning the announced election results made by authorized state election officials.”
Pretty sure this is as unconstitutional as it gets on 1st amendment grounds.
I can never tell what’s news and what’s satire in these posts. (And not only because we’re living in Clown World.)
It’s satire
I wonder if those three would also rule the same way for needing an ID to buy a gun.
Remember, what’s said in satire often sounds completely legit, despite being over-the-top.
“ All of the claimants have IDs that can be used to get ballots they can cast.”
If this is true, I think it is one of the most ironic things that has happened lately. The Dems do not want fair elections but it seems that they cannot even find people who have no ID that they can use in order to vote. The entire cohort of Demvoters who are in the major “free stuff” category have ID in order to get their “free stuff”.
I would give up my right to a secret ballot if it meant assuring all voters were citizens and all votes cast were legal.
A “secret ballot” is nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution, and a “secret ballot” means you don’t have to tell anyone WHOM you voted for - not that it’s a secret you voted at all. We really have an intelligence problem.
Good luck with this.
We used to sign in woth a pen on paper in a book that was used to compare your past signature against the present one.
Since CoupFlu, that’s now done digitally, and since there are never any styluses, you sign in with your blunt fingertip.
My signature is illegible.
Good luck verifying signatures that way.
And voting is NOT a human right. My minor kids can’t vote. Non-citizens can’t LEGALLY vote. Are they not human. This woman really is epically stupid.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property - those are human rights.
SAVE database (can be used by states) to identify non-citizens on their voter rolls.
Guilty sign for states that don’t use it an audit needs to be done on them if they don’t use it.
Perhaps consider changing the title of your website. As it is, it implies that some of your information is real, some is not. But which is which? This leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
We see some of that confusion on this thread.
According to Jackson and her fellow 'tards, healthcare and housing are also human rights. But healthcare providers and landlords nearly always require a government ID prior to providing services. RACISTS!
I agree it would be nice if we had clear indications of what is and is not intended to be satire.
The quote for Newsom appears to be satire (I cannot find that actual quote attested anywhere) - but the difference between that quote and things he’s actually said is subtle at best. Perhaps that’s part of making witty satire, but when virtually everything else in that paragraph is verifiably true and can be referenced, it’s hard to make that call.
Now, please, it’s not the end of the world. Just saying.
Apparently this is not KBJ, but satire. I looked and can’t find that statement in the ruling or any subsequent statements.
I can’t even find the court’s order on the SCOTUS website.
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.