Replies

I doubt that justices with lifetime appointments care whether their institution is respected or not. As long as the 1788 constitution is in force, they are the only (”court of last resort”) game in town. They will continue to have about three hundred times the number of cases that they can handle each year.

Laypeople might want to read the explanation of the decision by attorneys who have actually argued cases before the Supreme Court.

Here’s an excerpt:
“The argument before the Court was that the federal law must control, because Congress had specified that, in filling out a federal form, all would-be voters had to do was to swear they are U.S. citizens, while Arizona went further and required an actual piece of official paper to prove citizenship. The challengers argued that the two approaches cannot co-exist, so the state proof requirement had to yield.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court agreed that, for now, Arizona’s proof requirement must yield to the federal form’s approach — that is, it is enough to register, using that form, if the would-be voter swears that he satisfies the citizenship requirement.

On the other hand, however, the Court also ruled that Arizona can seek permission from federal officials to impose its proof-of-citizenship requirement. If it fails with that request, it can go to court and argue that it has a constitutional right to make proof of citizenship a binding requirement for all voters.
It was the kind of mixed decision that can sometimes baffle lay readers and, in this instance, maybe even lawyers and judges, too, because the two parts of the ruling did not seem to be reconciled easily.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/