Posted on 06/17/2013 8:03:34 PM PDT by jazusamo
Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.
The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game.
Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, it’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow — and they know it.
Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.
In the last year, I’ve litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in today’s opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.
From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today.
The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the “citizen check-off box” issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen.
Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:
● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.
● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.
● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked.
● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.
● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.
So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.
How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.
First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.
You might say, “That’s a small victory.” Nonsense. This was the whole ballgame to the groups pushing the Arizona lawsuit. They lost, period.
Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance.
After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.
The decision today is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past. It is understandable and forgivable because they aren’t daily immersed in the long-term election-process agenda of the left-wing groups. Nor do they daily involve themselves with the details of election process. But having been in the “preemption wars” for nearly a decade, I can assure you this case is a big win, even if it doesn’t appear so at first glance.
bflr
In other words, the United States burned while the Federals made the States fiddle.
That could happen, but part of today's ruling said that Arizona (or any other state) can check the federal registration form against other records (SSN, state tax records, etc) to verify citizenship if the registrant does not provide it. And the voter MUST check the box certifying (under penalty of perjury) they are a citizen or the form gets discarded. So if they verify through other means and find non-citizens trying to register, they can be prosecuted under both state and federal election laws.
Some states will use state forms, others will use federal - it is up to the state.
What’s to stop libs from starting all over and suing states to force them to use the federal form ?
In part, this case will prevent the libs from suing to force states to use the federal form. The opinion made it clear that states can use their own forms that comport with their own registration laws - but if someone uses the federal form, the state must accept it and cannot add their own requirements to the federal form. They can however ask the feds to add the state requirements to the forms used in their state, and according to Scalia, may even be able to sue to force the Feds to do so, since they have already done so for other states.
No, it reinforces the concept that the federal law takes precedence over state law with regard to registration for FEDERAL elections. State law is still primary with regard to state and local elections. You could require voters to fill out the state registration form in order to be able to vote in state and local elections, or just be limited to voting in federal elections if they choose to use the federal form. There would be some logistical problems with that, but it would be legal and constitutional (federalism).
Since the author of this article has worked a long time in election law and federal law, and is a rock-solid law and order conservative with the record to prove it, I think I will give his opinion a higher level of credence than yours.
I hope this is not the same kind of victory we got when John Roberts gave us ObamaCare.
part of today's ruling said that Arizona (or any other state) can check the federal registration form against other records (SSN, state tax records, etc) to verify citizenship if the registrant does not provide it.
"...while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from 'deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.'" Opinion page 12
Which is exactly the problem.
The onus to prove/disprove eligibility is on the state rather than the applicant. The State is barred from obtaining information from the applicant and instead must rely on information in their possession.
Meanwhile the foreigner is registered, and will vote.
A vote can not be undone.
Nice analysis and good news. I heard Levin today complaining and he missed this completely.
This all depends on who controls the state government so lets not kill off our GOP governors please. Here in Maryland illegals and criminals will vote.
Rather than control the front door, the borders/ports, everyone will be admitted to the country.
Then everyone within the country will be enabled to live here, unless encountered and then the state can try to determine if they are here illegally.
So with voting:
Rather than control who registers, everyone will be registered and admitted to the process.
Then everyone in the process will be enabled to vote unless the state can determine they are illegally registered.
Common sense: Control the point of entry - to the country or the process - rather than backstop it after the fact.
Right, but when does the left, serve to reinforce the law?
When it is in their best interest.
I hope he Adams goes on Mark Levin’s show. Levin was very critical of the SC decision.
At last Conservatives and winning strategy. I’ts been so long since this has been practiced, we’ve forgotten how it’s done! A bright spot on a dark horizon. We might have kicked a few rumps with this one.....Last score...when JC Roberts upheld obombacare as constitutional as a tax, All the libs were shouting with glee and yet when magic mulatto son came on to say his prepared written for him words....he had a strange appearance, as what the he’l just happened. This was not the outcome he expected for obombacare vs SC There is more than one way to skin a cat....Think Patton, Eisenhower not the professionals who might have had great educations with no street smarts.
bttt
In theory, the decision may not be as big as a victory for the Left.
Only in theory. The PEOPLE do not trust those marxist states, as they sought/seek to dominate the whole political landscape.
Again, back in the time when pinwheel feed printers were all the rage there were all sorts of private formats and they all needed to be approved by the issuing agency ~ whether, state, federal, local, England, France, etc. With today's cut sheet printing it's less of an issue.
Obama minion bragged on FOX how they would call individuals urging them to vote and even intimidating them
Indiana’s AG has filed suit for using Obami-fone in electioneering If is illegal to mix government property with a candidates bid for office
Saw the initial report of suit. If anyone has more info please post
This is exactly what I said to hubby as we heard the ruling, that the states can use their own forms and claim they can verify citizenship for state election
We need to dispel this notion that there are Federal elections. That animal does not exist except in one instance: state electors voting for POTUS. Outside of that every election is a STATE election. Federal means nationwide, across state lines. The voters of Illinois don't cast votes for US Senator from the state of Iowa, etc. If there were Federal elections then D.C. would have its own voter registration rolls and we would be voting at the nearest Federal building instead of at the local precinct. We have statewide/district wide elections for Federal office holders.
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.