Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The Supreme Court announced Monday it has struck down an Arizona law that required voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, seven justices agreed that the Arizona law oversteps the state's authority by essentially invalidating the federal voter registration form. The form, established by a 1993 law, lets people register to vote by sending in a uniform document accepted by all states. Voters must swear they are citizens on the form.
In a 2004 ballot initiative, Arizona voters decided they wanted to go beyond that federal requirement, by asking for proof of citizenship--such as a birth certificate, passport, or tribal ID card--at the point of voter registration.
Critics of the Arizona law argued that it stripped some voters of their ability to vote, since some civil rights groups estimate that about 13 million citizens do not have documentary proof of their citizenship. The law's supporters said it would guard against any attempts by non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Three other states had similar laws and joined in on the case.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme court has struck down a law that disenfranchised voters in Arizona. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and John Roberts was also a part of the majority decision.

Well done, Supremes.

Article is here.

 

[windowdressing]

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme court has struck down a law that disenfranchised voters in Arizona. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and John Roberts was also a part of the majority decision.

Well done, Supremes.

Article is here.

thanks for sharing this ... we seem to agree on this ...

 

[American]

Yeah, why should voting be limited only to US citizens? :roll:

 

[Erod]

Next up, blanket amnesty, and the United States is changed forever. Republicans will never win another election.

 

[Bronson]

Yeah, why should voting be limited only to US citizens? :roll:

Why should it be limited to humans?

Hell why should we be limited to one vote?

Rome here we come

 

[Lutherf]

Well, AZ is toast. I can't even begin to imagine how many people will be bussed in to be handed a box lunch and a ballot.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Huh. Who could have predicted this outcome? The Supreme Court is highly unpredictable in its decisions sometimes

 

[Captain America]

Eventually, the rightwing GOP will have to come to terms with the people in the mainstream if they intend to survive as a party. Gerrymandering, voter oppression, redrawing district lines, and any other "competitive edge," they have been counting on will not stand the tests of time, (or the Supreme Court either, it seems.)

If the leftwing factions split much like the GOP factions have, that might be their saving grace but I hardly see that happening.

 

[clownboy]

Eventually, the rightwing GOP will have to come to terms with the people in the mainstream if they intend to survive as a party. Gerrymandering, voter oppression, redrawing district lines, and any other "competitive edge," they have been counting on will not stand the tests of time, (or the Supreme Court either, it seems.)

I agree the GOP is where the dems were in the early 2000s, but this old sod about gerrymandering is getting lame. Gerrymandering is a legal tactic used by both parties. Charges of "voter oppression" are silly and baseless. I for one feel oppressed as a voter over the latest indignity heaped upon us by the SCOTUS. They just decided the vote of American citizens just doesn't matter, that instead we must protect the illegal's right to vote.

But the pendulum-like nature of politics in America is still active. Today the dems ride ascendent, tomorrow they'll be in the dust moaning about how they might not survive. Rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, while you play cheerleader for one side or the other, the court shapes our county through absolute fiat. They are what the founders warned us they would be if they were allowed the power. In short, the SCOTUS have become our Ayatollahs, our ruling council - with lifetime appointments.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, why should voting be limited only to US citizens? :roll:

It is limited to US citizens. We're you under the impression this has changed?

 

[clownboy]

It is limited to US citizens. We're you under the impression this has changed?

It changed today, have you been taking a vacation from the news? The SCOTUS just ruled we cannot require that we check citizenship. Any asshat who can fill out a form, we just take their word for it.

 

[Fisher]

It would be funny if AZ turns around and eliminates voting in the Presidential elections by people altogether. People forget there is no Constitutional right to vote for President. States can delegate that to the legislature and leave the people out completely.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It would be funny if AZ turns around and eliminates voting in the Presidential elections by people altogether. People forget there is no Constitutional right to vote for President. States can delegate that to the legislature and leave the people out completely.

Thank god no one is arguing for that.

 

[Deuce]

It changed today, have you been taking a vacation from the news? The SCOTUS just ruled we cannot require that we check citizenship. Any asshat who can fill out a form, we just take their word for it.

This is not true. There are other checks that occur at various stages in the process. They vary by state.

 

[clownboy]

It would be funny if AZ turns around and eliminates voting in the Presidential elections by people altogether. People forget there is no Constitutional right to vote for President. States can delegate that to the legislature and leave the people out completely.

Whoa, yeah, I do/did forget that. Of course, shortly thereafter, before the next national election, SCOTUS would just manufacture one. They don't seem tied to the Constitution. They're at the we can make any **** up we want, as long as we're creative enough.

 

[clownboy]

This is not true.

Yes, yes it is.

 

[danarhea]

It would be funny if AZ turns around and eliminates voting in the Presidential elections by people altogether. People forget there is no Constitutional right to vote for President. States can delegate that to the legislature and leave the people out completely.

Josef Stalin just smiled.

 

[wbcoleman]

Huh. Who could have predicted this outcome? The Supreme Court is highly unpredictable in its decisions sometimes

Scalia wrote the decision and Roberts concurred.

 

[wbcoleman]

This is not true. There are other checks that occur at various stages in the process. They vary by state.

I live in Madiganistan and I am unaware of any checks whatsoever here.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, yes it is.

You seriously think the state doesn't do any verification at all?

 

[soot]

It is limited to US citizens. We're you under the impression this has changed?

When I was in high school there was this one ****ty little bar in town that was...less than consistent...in carding for purchases of alcohol.

As you might expect I did a fair share of my underage drinking at that bar.

Now, I was born in 1970 so by the time I got to high school the legal drinking age was 21.

You see how that works?

Drinking was limited to folks 21 years of age and older, but since nobody was looking we regularly took advantage of the fact and drank, despite what the law said.

There's an old saying that "locks are made to keep honest people out".

The same can probably be said for unenforced laws.

Without actually establishing by some simple, rudimentary process to verify that folks showing up at the polling place are actually legally entitled to vote, or kids showing up at the bar are actually legally entitled to drink, how else would we enforce the laws that underly the legitamacy of either action?

 

[clownboy]

Josef Stalin just smiled.

Wow, modified Godwin, way to go.

The Ayatollahs just smiled, they're happy to see your support of the ruling council.

 

[Deuce]

When I was in high school there was this one ****ty little bar in town that was...less than consistent...in carding for purchases of alcohol.

As you might expect I did a fair share of my underage drinking at that bar.

Now, I was born in 1970 so by the time I got to high school the legal drinking age was 21.

You see how that works?

Drinking was limited to folks 21 years of age and older, but since nobody was looking we regularly took advantage of the fact and drank, despite what the law said.

There's an old saying that "locks are made to keep honest people out".

The same can probably be said for unenforced laws.

Without actually establishing by some simple, rudimentary process that folks showing up at the polling place are actually legally entitled to vote, or kids showing up at the bar are actually legally entitled to drink, how else would we enforce the laws that underly the legitamacy of either action?

The voting precinct is not your shady ass bar. If you think no checking is done at all, why do you think there is even a registration process? Why not just let anyone wander in and vote?

 

[Master PO]

this decision was about can the state of AZ, ask for I.D. when a person is registering to vote......

the answer is .....no ...........according to the USSC

 

[wbcoleman]

This is not true. There are other checks that occur at various stages in the process. They vary by state.

I live in Madiganistan and I am unaware of any checks whatsoever here.