Posted on 07/18/2024 3:19:36 PM PDT by NohSpinZone
Voters in Arizona who register with the state and do not provide proof of citizenship will be rejected.
"This is a victory for election integrity in Arizona. Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections. It sounds like common sense, but the radical left elected officials in our state continue to reject this notion, disrespecting the voices of our lawful Arizona voters. We are grateful the court is upholding this provision in our law, and it's time for Congress to take action to ensure only lawful U.S. citizens are voting in federal races."
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Thanks so much for providing a direct link!!!
So because a judge rule that only citizens can vote is this now law of the land?
Just like they did with gay marriage after a judicial ruling?
Awesome! Now fix the census. Only citizens should be counted,
Surrender Monkeys hardest hit
Still gotta enforce it. Fake ID info comin’ right up.
The main thing is that the Democratic party as it stands today must be destroyed. They are treating elections as offices and money to be stolen and are breaking, and/or not enforcing all the legal safeguards necessary for a safe modern society.
You missed the fact that it’s a victory of the highest level. I’ll let you think about that for a while.
For now though, here’s a small part: the low IQ left is always telling us “but there’s no illegal aliens voting!” To which we can reply that it wouldn’t have reached the federal courts if it weren’t a real thing.
As if democrats care what the courts say.
Federal law already makes it illegal for non-citizens to vote (18 USC 611). What has been lacking is the ENFORCEMENT of proof of citizenship.
The Arizona Senate Republicans are trying to pull a fast one here. This strictly an order granting a stay of the district court’s action. The order does not even describe what they are staying.
We conclude that appellants in No. 24-3188 have satisfied the standard for a stay pending appeal with respect to the portion of the injunction barring enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C). We conclude that appellants have failed to satisfy the standard for a stay pending appeal in all other respects. The district court’s May 2, 2024 judgment is therefore stayed to the extent that it bars enforcement of A.R.S. § 16-121.01(C). This order is subject to reconsideration by the panel assigned to decide the merits of this appeal.
And outlining the briefing schedule.
https://www.azsenaterepublicans.gov/_files/ugd/2f3470_b0c9c2c190424627a0a51b20c7ed1672.pdf
Well played.
Sigh. They’re not going to start from scratch. Just be happy there is a change going forward.
For dropbox and mail-ins, how will they "verify the voter’s eligibility before counting the ballot?" They checked a box on the form?
On July 31, 2017, Judge Susan Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order finding former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt. The case was brought pursuant to a 2011 order issued by District Judge Murray Snow preventing Arpaio and the county sheriff’s department “from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona smuggling statute, or any other state or federal law.” On May 24, 2013, Judge Snow also issued a permanent injunction enjoining the county sheriff’s department from “[d]etaining, holding, or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on reasonable belief, without more, that such persons were in the country without authorization.” Regarding Judge Snow’s orders, in neither instance was Arpaio found to be in compliance. Judge Snow issued a civil contempt citation to Arpaio in 2016 and referring him for trial on criminal contempt charges before Judge Bolton.
“know your jurisdiction” in the banana republic of America.
The actual comment was: If a voter does not have acceptable identification, they can still cast a provisional ballot. Election officials will verify the voter’s eligibility before counting the ballot.
Providing only part of the information is what Democrats regularly do. We are better than them. With the full context it becomes clear that the partial comment only pertained to provisional ballots not mail-in ballots.
Immediately following that were the following statements. The first from Arizona rules, the second from me:
1) It’s worth noting that Arizona does not require ID for mail-in voting. 2) That's where the real problem comes from.
I finished with my comment:
That's where large numbers of voters make the difference. Encouraging all of us to go vote regardless of the cheating.
Yes.
The BidenStooge appointments have tipped the balance back to the Donkacrat "judges".
Thanks for the reply. I was not disputing the mail-in problems that you posted. I agree that mail-ins are a huge problem. However, I think you will agree that AZ Dems will seize every opportunity to take advantage of loose election security. Even if we are successful at tightening mail-in procedures, I don’t trust election officials to properly verify the voters’ eligibility. I hope that concern is not necessary, but it seems that no matter what we do, they have another trick.
9th Circus?! This is yuge. Next they’ll rule that the sun rises in the East! The racists.
That’s what Kari Lake’s lawsuit was all about. They have the keystroke records from people verifying mail in ballot signatures - they were spending less than 2 seconds per ballot. A trained signature expert, with 30 years of service, said even HE needed at least 20-30 seconds per signature to verifying if it matched a known signature (driver license). Judge ignored his testimony
3 9th circuit judges, not an en banc ruling.
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.