[BuckeyeTexan]

And the recent Supreme Court decision that he cites to the contrary — last year’s decision invalidating part of an Arizona voting law – … rebuts Senator Paul’s position.

No, it does not. That decision says:

When Congress legislates with respect to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a preexisting legal regime erected by the States. Because the power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to preempt (the states), the reasonable assumption is that the statutory text (of the National Voter Registration Act) accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s preemptive intent.

...

The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.” 

(Parenthetical additions are mine.)

Rand is legally correct on this one. If Congress chooses to write legislation that affects the manner in which states hold federal elections, it supersedes state laws.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Why did I not read what Rand is proposing? Doh! He’s wrong about Congress being able legislate who can vote.

So ignore my previous post.

[jazusamo]

Thanks...I have one question.

Paul’s bill supposedly would enfranchise nonviolent felons not only convicted in federal courts but also state courts, can his proposed bill cover state felons as well as federal felons?