Voter identification law from 2004 struck down

KVOA.com ^ | Updated: Oct 26, 2010 1:25 PM | KVOA.com

[Tucson_AZ]

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has struck down the law requiring Arizona voters to present proof of citizenship to vote.

Prop. 200, approved by Arizona voters in 2004, was found to violate federal law - the majority opinion was that the National Voter Registration Act precludes states from imposing additional requirements.

[watchdogmom]

I have to call bullshit here!

[Rome2000]

The “Congressional Progressive Caucus” must be targeted and destroyed as well their allies in the press and academia.

No holds barred, take no prisoners, name names, and make these red bastards pay dearly for the consequences of nearly one hundred years of insidious and unrelenting attacks on capitalism and judeo-christian morality.

The days of marxists operating in the open in your face and you'll like it or else are fast drawing to a close.

THESE RED SONS OF BITCHES THINK THEY CAN STEAL THE PRODUCTIVE CLASS MONEY BY THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

WRONG.

THEY WANT THE CAPITALISTS MONEY, THEY CAN TRY AND GET IT AT GUNPOINT LIKE ANY OTHER SELF RESPECTING MARXIST DOES.

[bikerman]

How do we fight such fraud?

Lock and Load,Am afraid revolution is nearing.

[Tzimisce]

Well the left needs the non-citizen vote in 2010 cause they’re facing a total collapse!

[South40]

And the fraud begins continues.

[Azzurri]

Just my opinion, but since the voter registration deadline has past, I can’t see this ruling affecting the current cycle.

Wish that were true, but don't kid yourself...Democrats register voters up to election day, rules or not. The system is so flawed and corrupted that there is little hope for our Republic's future well-being.

[rockinqsranch]

A six year old voter initiative apparently, and it’s just now, just prior to the most important election in our history decided upon.

This is bullshit. This is collusion. This is another action to put on the list of cleanup, and cleanout this government.

It’s Roto-Rooter time. We the people with snake in hand, and get with the program.

[rockinqsranch]

Reminds me of the female Democrat, I cannot remember who she was as it was years ago said upon being caught cheating “Well!!! I HAD TO WIN!”

I’ve never forgotten that, actually my wife is the one that remembers that so often, and won’t let me forget it.

It’s the attitude of the Democrats. They are the minority party of the two major Political Parties, and I guess they think they have a right to cheat because they are the minority Party. It’s either that, or as I’ve posted before they simply attract criminals like flies on stuff.

[2harddrive]

“Just because you can’t make them show proof of citizenship at the time of vote doesn’t mean the fraudulent ballots have to be accepted....correct?”

They will say you don’t have STANDING to challenge those ballots.

[2harddrive]

We don’t even have standing to demand the President be an American!

[DBeers]

...the majority opinion was that the National Voter Registration Act precludes states from imposing additional requirements.

Hogwash!

The "National Voter Registration Act" is unconstitutional!

It is the States that decide the "how" -the mechanics, methods, and requirements of how elections are handled!!!!

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Tucson_AZ.

[RockinRight]

The Voter Integrity Protection Act

It is the finding of the Congress that the electoral process in the United States has become susceptible to influence from non-citizens, and from fraudulent ballots.

As a solution, this BILL requires:

1. As of March 1, 2011, all voter registration rolls in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are hereby purged. All voters may re-register on or after that day.

2. In order to register to vote, one MUST provide the following:

a. Proof of US Citizenship. The Voter must provide either a US Birth Certificate, a Naturalization Certificate, or other certified Federal proof of citizenship as further outlined in this bill.

b. The Voter must provide a valid photo ID and proof of residence in the State, District, or US Territory in which they reside and wish to vote; A state-issued ID is acceptable, or, in lieu, a US Passport plus a mortgage or utility bill, or a signed lease agreement on a rental residence.

c. To prevent registration in multiple States, a nationwide voter database will be maintained. If a voter previously registered in one State wishes to register in a new State of residence, they must first submit to the first state their wish to purge their registration in that state effective at the time of their new State registration.

That’s the general idea of what I think we should do...

[brityank]

If the en banc Ninth doesn't slap this down, the USSC should. Here's Judge Kozinski's dissent synopsis:

Chief Judge KOZINSKI, dissenting in large part:

As the majority belatedly acknowledges 47 pages into its opinion, we don’t come to this case with a blank slate. A prior panel has already held in a published opinion that Proposition 200 isn’t preempted because the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) “plainly allow[s] states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Gonzalez I”). That is law of the circuit and therefore binding on us. See, e.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Even if it weren’t, it’s law of the case and can’t be lightly disregarded for that reason. See, e.g., Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1991). The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. First, it evades law of the circuit by creating an exception that is squarely foreclosed by a recent unanimous en banc opinion. The majority then weakens our rules governing law of the case by declaring that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the NVRA is “clearly erroneous” when it’s clearly not.

Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s voter registration requirement.

Claire -- Is it time yet?

[AmericanExceptionalist]

No big surprise here: Whenever the will of a majority of the voters does not dovetail nicely with Liberal Orthodoxy, well, then it is time to take to the courts.

A handful of black-robed individuals, after all, can usually be relied upon to trump (or, more precisely, to circumvent) the will of the majority; the latter being increasingly held in the lowest possible esteem by the Advanced Thinkers of the political left...

[magna carta]

Oh I do so wish I could form my very own political party...DEPORT 30 MILLION PARTY.

[magna carta]

Oh I do so wish I could form my very own political party...DEPORT 30 MILLION PARTY.

[magna carta]

Oh I do so wish I could form my very own political party...DEPORT 30 MILLION PARTY.

[Chgogal]

Just wondering when we will send over 1.6 Billion ballots to the Chinese so they can vote in our elections (since NO PROOF of citizenship is required just the threat of perjury a la Clinton). WTF 9th Circuit?

[TheThinker]

Right, judicial tyranny, judicial treason.