Surpreme Court Strikes Down AZ Voter Law

Surpreme Court ^ | 6/17/13

[ConservativeMan55]

Sup Ct strikes down AZ law requiring proof of US citizenship for those seeking to vote in fed election. 7-2

[CottShop]

[[With the integrity of the nation’s form of government on the line, these guys are debating the minutia. Alice in Wonderland. ]]

Yes, they are deabtign what “IS is” they are pullign a clniton on the American people- and they are countign on the citizens beign too stupid to realize they are beign bamboozled-

When we don’t even have a supreme court to protect us agaisnt a rogue govenrment any longer, the republic is finished- done, kapoot- the surpeme court was suppsoed to be our last lien of defence agaisnt tyraynny, but now even that is lost to us-

[struggle]

The conflict here seems to be that federal law simply states that the person affirm “under threat of persecution” that they are or are not a citizen. The Arizona law takes the extra step of rejecting any registration that does not accompany proof of citizenry, which is seen as an undue burden.

[thegrump]

All we need to do is lose the House. Then it is all over, but the shouting!!!!

Rats in the house, forever!!!!

I hate to say this, but do you really see any Conservatives in the House, I believe the House is already gone. To those who think it is over are right,ONLY, if we choose to go down without a fight and please don't confuse the word fight with a Political fight. We are already beyond that.

[butterdezillion]

I think that’s how it would have to be done. Only thing is, you have to have proof of ineligibility. You could require them to show proof of eligibility in order to vote in the state and if they didn’t provide proof of eligibility you could deny them the ability to register for a STATE election, but you still wouldn’t have any proof of ineligibility to justify disallowing them to vote in federal elections. Of course, that would mean there would have to be 2 voter registration systems in each state - one for state and local elections and another for federal elections.

I wonder if some states can only recognize the federal election results of another state if the other state has minimum fraud prevention measures in place. Or maybe the other states need to file lawsuits against states where fraud is known to be rampant - suing those states of willful neglect resulting in the defrauding of all the other states.

We have to do something, or the country is lost.

[piytar]

If I was running Arizona, my response would be to stop ALL vetting of voters. After all, if you can’t stop the illegals from voting early and often, why stop the citizens from voting early and often? SCOTUS just guaranteed fraudulent elections, so why go through with the charade?

[max americana]

“We have to do something, or the country is lost.”

check out my prayer...

[Moonman62]

(c) Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1; Amdt. 17. It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.

The NVRA permits a State to request the EAC to include state -specific instructions on the Federal Form, see 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–7(a)(2), and a State may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request (or failure to act on it) in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here.

Should the EAC reject or decline to act on a renewed request, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement on the Federal Form.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Who wrote the majority opinion and how in the world did they justify it?

Scalia, and the rationale is federal preemption: Congress in the Motor Voter Act said that states "must accept" federal registration forms (which require a sworn statement that the voter is a citizen, but no other proof), so states cannot (under the Supremacy Clause) contradict the federal law.

[piytar]

Well, AZ can request a change to the form. Sure Holder will get right on with complying with that request...

[ecomcon]

If it is okay to cheat, it is not cheating. We vote as many times as necessary too.

[No Socialist]

“Stinks to high heaven..”

When the dicktator has access to all your personal communications there is plenty of opportunity for black mail. This is why character matters. Anyone with something to hide is at risk for coercion.

[Finny]

Yes, item (c) in the syllabus leaves the door open for Arizona to correct the shortcoming and still accomplish their aim. Like I said, a highly technical decision supporting the Rule of Law without undermining Arizona’s ultimate aim. This is not the total fail it appears to be at first blush.

Thank you. It's good to see a realist on this thread among the many hysterical cynics.

[NonValueAdded]

... and you have the hint from Scalia that when AZ challenges Holder, it will ultimately win.

It’s a chess match. SCOTUS is following the Rule of Law and not simply acting as a legislature - something we decidedly don’t want them to do. This is a technical setback, that’s all. It is check, not checkmate.

[CottShop]

[[I’m just about ready to build a cabin in the woods somewhere and tell the world to f off!]]

Just make sure you follow all the guidelines and beurocracy and red tape while builiding it otherwisde you’ll be fined-

It USED TO BE that a person could go compeltely off grid and never be forced to do anything- or to purchase anything- a person coudll ive entirely off the land, never pay another tax in their lifetime, never pay another dime for ANYTHING if they so chose to- never be forced to purchase anything-

Then alogn came the TRAITOR John Roberts saying it was legal for our govnerment to FORCE us to purchase soemthing because, get this, ‘it’s not the supreme court’s job to protect the peopel from their own choices’ (Apparently the traitor will then be ok with a republican president coming along and declarign that NO man shall EVER asgain have the right to demand that any citizen purchase anything agaisnt hteir will’ and to make that a permanent law which can never be undone- Yeah I didn’t htink so either=- the Traiter John Roberts will probably come alogn and overturn suchg a law then declarign he’s doign so to protect the citizens)

Now we have the Supreme court tellign states they have no right to try to prevent ILLEGAL votes? Whjat next? Will the Traitor John Roberts then declare states have no right tryign to prevent ILLEGALS from raping? Murdering? Stealing? By declarign hte states may saty ‘how’ citizens are not allowed to commit crimes, but it may not say “Who’ is to be boudn by state laws?

We have a bunch of court jesters presiding over us i nthe supreme court

[Servant of the Cross]

Scalia simply doesn’t believe in republican self-government.

Poppycock. He just applies the law to his decisions. The culprit isn't Scalia, it is the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (aka Motor Voter).

[butterdezillion]

Perhaps this is the way AZ or any other state could require documentation of eligibility for the office that individuals are running for. Pass a law saying that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship and eligibility requirements. IOW, WHENEVER there is a citizenship or eligibility requirement, documentation above and beyond a mere oath is required.

This should be done in every state.

The problem I see is trying to have it “established in a reviewing court”. The entire judiciary is compromised when it comes to serious issues, IMHO. For instance, the IRS intimidation extended to all judges in CA, IIRC.

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS ping.

[skeeter]

SCOTUS is following the Rule of Law and not simply acting as a legislature - something we decidedly don’t want them to do.

I don't know if I'd characterize it that way. There may be certain members who are following the rule of law, but there are others who joined on this decision who nearly always use their position on the court to legislate.

TO be honest with you, I can't help but wonder if, everything being so corrupt now, perhaps a little corruption is the only way to set things on the right track again.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The Supreme Court has become as bogus and corrupt as the congress and the presidency. Nothing they do suprises me.

[NonValueAdded]

It is a thin majority, to be sure, and we’re one Justice away from game over. That’s why I wonder what the hell Beck is trying to accomplish by going after CJ Roberts - if that is in fact what he’s trying to do.