Posted on 08/12/2024 3:51:50 AM PDT by george76
National and Arizona Republicans are formally requesting the Supreme Court allow a state law go into effect that would reject state voter registrations in which the applicant does not provide proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in state elections. The motion also asks the high court to permit Arizona to require such proof for individuals submitting mail-in ballots and voting in presidential contests.
Filed on Thursday by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona’s GOP legislative leadership, the emergency application asks SCOTUS to issue a stay on a Aug. 2 decision by a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which prohibited enforcement of provisions in a 2022 state law requiring individuals provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) when registering via state voter registration forms.
That decision reversed a July 18 ruling by the court’s motions panel allowing the law to take effect, according to AZ Free News. The motions panel’s decision overturned a May district court ruling that deemed the law illegal.
Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino are among several left-wing groups challenging the statute’s legality.
In requesting SCOTUS allow the DPOC requirement to be used in the Grand Canyon State’s November elections, the RNC and Arizona Republicans cited the Purcell principle, which, as described by Ballotpedia, is a legal doctrine “establishing that courts should not change election rules during the period just prior to an election because it could confuse voters and election officials.” The principle originates from the 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell vs. Gonzalez, which centered on an Arizona voter ID requirement.
“This Court has repeatedly instructed that the Purcell principle bars federal courts from enjoining the enforcement of state election laws with an election impending,” the filing reads. “The principle recognizes the important interests state officials have in protecting their elections and avoiding voter confusion. But the Ninth Circuit turned this principle against the enforcement of state election integrity laws.”
Applicants argue the imminence of the November contest justifies the “need for prompt relief” and that resolution of the matter “concerns the form and printing deadline of ballots: to implement its prohibition on voting in presidential elections by individuals who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship, Arizona must either not print the presidential candidates on federal only-ballots, or configure its tabulation machines not to count presidential votes on federal only ballots.”
In Arizona, individuals who do not provide DPOC when registering to vote are permitted to do so as “federal-only voters” and cast ballots in federal elections. That allowance is due to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling known as Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.
“Requiring proof of citizenship is common sense and fundamental to preserving the integrity of our elections — especially in our country’s most important presidential election,” RNC Chair Michael Whatley said in a statement. “This application in the Supreme Court is pivotal to ensuring that Arizonans’ votes are not cancelled by noncitizens.”
Applicants have requested SCOTUS to issue a stay allowing the aforementioned DPOC requirements to take effect before Aug. 22.
Justice Elena Kagan is the “circuit justice” tasked with handling emergency stay applications from western states. According to SCOTUSblog, she can “grant or deny the application on her own, or she can refer it to the full court for all of the justices to vote on it.” The issuance of a stay would then require approval from at least five justices.
The 15th Amendment demands proof of citizenship, not just residency.
Amazing that we've fallen so far that one of the major parties would oppose it.
might want to have the same requirement for the candidates...
"Filed on Thursday by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Arizona’s GOP legislative leadership, the emergency application asks SCOTUS to issue a stay on a Aug. 2 decision by a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which prohibited enforcement of provisions in a 2022 state law requiring individuals provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) when registering via state voter registration forms [emphasis added]."
Regarding misguided (imo) judges, the law schools are evidently not teaching students about MAJOR constitutional problems with states that allow non-citizens to vote.
From related threads ...
More specifically, the congressional record shows that post-Civil War federal lawmakers had pointed out that states that allow non-citizens to vote would be wrongly nullifying the Constitution's "Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause."
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [emphasis added], and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but" * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government, from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
In fact, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified shortly after the excerpts above appeared in the congressional record, is a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred.
Note the zero tolerance "hair trigger" wording in that section that should be a warning for any state thinking about rigging an election.
Excerpted from 14A:
"But when the right to vote at any election"
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
With Section 2 in mind, consider that if this were a better world, the feds would be reminding all states before an election that the feds will be darkening the doorway of any state to investigate allegations of possible violations of constitutional voting integrity protections.
On the other hand, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored Section 2 (imo) with respect to allegations of electoral vote-counting problems in 2020 elections.
The constitutionally reality is that, since worthless career federal lawmakers and renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are enemies of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.
In other words, it's now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.
Down the Memory Hole: Google Hides Autocomplete Suggestions Related to Trump Assassination Attempt (7.28.24)
Elena Kagan has the right to rule up or down or refer the ruling to the full supreme court to decide.
One would immediately think that Kagan would deny the motion—thus allowing illegals to vote.
She would not care about or consider any part of the argument. Rather she would consider what would best benefit democrats. That naturally, would be illegals voting because that’s considered to be good for democrats.
Why is this reasoning wrong?
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.