Supreme Court says Arizona cannot ask for proof of citizenship for federal voter regi

  1. 0 WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
    The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law. ...

    ... The court was considering the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

    Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

    The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states-Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee-have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation. ...

    ... Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.
    The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. ...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...25d_story.html
  2. Enjoy this?

    Join thousands and get our weekly Nursing Insights newsletter with the hottest discussions, articles, and toons.


  3. Visit  herring_RN profile page

    About herring_RN

    herring_RN has '>40 years' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical'. From 'California, USA'; Joined Mar '04; Posts: 13,642; Likes: 24,163.

    29 Comments so far...

  4. Visit  tntrn profile page
    2
    I disagree with this decision on so many levels I won't bother to even list them. You can't do anything without photo ID in this country, including walking into Blockbuster and renting a movie.....but you can vote! Sad and pathetic.
    Munch and VivaLasViejas like this.
  5. Visit  aknottedyarn profile page
    5
    I cannot imagine too many undocumented workers who would go to vote knowing there was a chance of INS arrest.

    Research shows the number of people who commit voter fraud is statistically insignificant.

    Arizona has tried to write or re-write federal law a few times and has been stopped repeatedly.

    Unfortunately in our country more people want to rent videos than vote.
    KelRN215, wooh, Not_A_Hat_Person, and 2 others like this.
  6. Visit  tntrn profile page
    1
    If even one person who is not a legal citizen or otherwise not legal to vote tries to vote, based on this encouragement, it is too many. Why not let underage "votes" happen too? I fail to see why an insignificant number who try to vote fraudulently, makes this acceptable.
    applewhitern likes this.
  7. Visit  aknottedyarn profile page
    2
    Arizona’s voter registration form included a requirement to prove citizenship. Since naturalized citizens would have to present their naturalization documents, it means they would not be able to register on line or by mail – unlike natural born citizens. Since federal law prohibits photocopying of naturalization documents, this requirement means that Naturalized citizens would have to register in person. Therefore, the law creates an obstacle especially created for naturalized citizens.


    It created an unfair burden for naturalized citizens. Unless all are equal none are equal. A citizen is a citizen.
    wooh and MunoRN like this.
  8. Visit  tewdles profile page
    6
    If even one legitimate voter is unable to vote because of this fear of fraud, that is too many...
    KelRN215, wooh, MunoRN, and 3 others like this.
  9. Visit  Elvish profile page
    6
    Quote from tntrn
    I disagree with this decision on so many levels I won't bother to even list them. You can't do anything without photo ID in this country, including walking into Blockbuster and renting a movie.....but you can vote! Sad and pathetic.
    The libertarian in me thinks we should be required to show ID far less than we are. It's ridiculous to have to show Blockbuster, the pharmacist, the doctor, and the lady at the storage unit my driver's license.
    tewdles, wooh, Munch, and 3 others like this.
  10. Visit  tntrn profile page
    1
    The argument over the elderly not having birth certificates will go away in time. My dad, born at home in 1927, had a birth certificate. So I think that argument will have no merit within a few years. As far as others not having photo ID, that is a bogus argument also.

    Every person who walks into the Birth Center where I worked had to present photo ID and proof of insurance. And those on welfare, or those who claimed not to have anything, all had photo id's.

    But hey, let's take the chance that none of those people who are here illegally will try to vote, or worse, be encouraged to vote anyway by some community organizing group.
    applewhitern likes this.
  11. Visit  herring_RN profile page
    1
    I think that for the few older people who never had a birth certificate filed there needs to be a less onerous way to get proof of citizenship. Maybe it is easier on like?

    Years ago my DH, born in 1927 waited in line for 8 hours on day and 6 the next trying to get a proof of citizenship with school records, the family bible, and such. He was told to get an attorney to help him prove he was born in the U.S.A. because his mother was born in the American Virgin Islands. He told the woman he no longer needs a passport because the farthest he planned to go was to the Virgin Islands. She told him he would need a passport to go to that foreign country!

    His sister did hire an attorney. Somehow she was listed as a boy by a doctor who stiched her foot after she stepped on glass. She had to go through a LOT including medical examinations although she had been married to a man more than 40 years and given birth to four babies. She had to prove she wasn't transgender. A DNA test for gender shouldn't be so expensive.
    ... States are still free to use their own voter-registration forms in addition to the federal form, the court said, and Arizona can require registrants to supply proof of citizenship when using the state form. Moreover, Arizona is free to cross-check information registrants supply on the federal form to ensure its accuracy, the court said.

    In addition, Justice Scalia added, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission to include state-specific requirements to the federal form. ...

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voting Rules - WSJ.com
    Not_A_Hat_Person likes this.
  12. Visit  Not_A_Hat_Person profile page
    1
    Why can't the government simply verify voter registrations once they're submitted?
    herring_RN likes this.
  13. Visit  VivaLasViejas profile page
    1
    Quote from Elvish
    The libertarian in me thinks we should be required to show ID far less than we are. It's ridiculous to have to show Blockbuster, the pharmacist, the doctor, and the lady at the storage unit my driver's license.
    I have to agree with this. Then again, I think the federal government is far too interested in the average American's mundane little life to be trusted anyway.
    tewdles likes this.
  14. Visit  aknottedyarn profile page
    5
    The photo ID is a red herring in this discussion. The issue was one of proof of naturalization. As shown in Post #4 the papers involved in this discussion cannot be copied therefore only naturalized citizens would be forced to register in person while the rest of the population can register in other ways.

    Equal means equal. Either everyone needs to register in person or not. To place this burden only only those who are documented immigrants who now have citizenship means we again are making divisions and showing that there are second class citizens who do not get the same treatment.

    As for the issue of government intrusion I think we all agree that our privacy and person is important. We, on the left, find government demanded ultra sounds as violating, or more so, than collecting data about my computer use. Not to say that is acceptable, but at least all have the same treatment while many laws and proposed laws only effect one gender.
    KelRN215, tewdles, wooh, and 2 others like this.
  15. Visit  tntrn profile page
    0
    Quote from aknottedyarn
    We, on the left, find government demanded ultra sounds as violating, or more so, than collecting data about my computer use. Not to say that is acceptable, but at least all have the same treatment while many laws and proposed laws only effect one gender.

    I assume you are talking about ultrasound and pregnancy and abortions. The thing is, men don't get pregnant so required them to have an ultrasound before a pregnancy they also cannot have is, hmmmm, how do put it? not a logical argument. Of course a requirement like that would "target" only women. Just as a test to forego doing PSA tests would "target" only men.

    But then I read over the weekend that some single moms were all up in arms about not being wished a Happy Father's Day, so I guess people can get their knickers all twisted up over the strangest things.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

Top