Replies

Thank you for posting that alancarp. If you have not seen the following material related to this state voter qualification issue, you may find it interesting.

"The DOJ argues the requirement is "a textbook violation [??? emphasis added] of the National Voter Registration Act," according to The Hill."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

From related threads...

In stark contrast to the Justice Department's misguided (imo) claim that proof of US citizenship as a qualification for voting in US elections violates federal law, please consider the following.

The congressional record clearly indicates that post-Civil War federal lawmakers had appropriately pointed out that renegade states that allow non-citizens to vote defeats the purpose of the Constitution's "Uniform rule of Naturalization Clause" (1.8.4).

"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 [emphases 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.)

So the "Arizona" problem is arguably DOJ interpretation problem (anti-Trump weaponization?) of federal election law, not a problem with Arizona voter qualification requirements imo.

Also consider that the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified a short while after the above excerpts were noted in the congressional record. Section 2 of that amendment a penalty for states that weaken the voting power of qualified citizens in any way which the Justice Department probably has the job of policing (ahem) imo, correction welcome.

Excerpted from 14A...

"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 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." [Section 2: Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Corrections, insights welcome.

Also regarding voting, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.

Again, insights welcome.