Supreme Court: Arizona proof of citizenship law illegal

[Carlybee]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9141892

[FrankRep]

Victory for voter fraud!


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court says 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.

[jbauer]

Wait, its against the law to check and make sure you actually are a citizen before you can vote?

So the NSA and record everything I do. The IRS can harass because of my political views. A drone can kill me without trial. Obama can send "presidential" updates to my Iphone. But a frickin state can't check to see who's here legally before you can vote for the jackasses that have put us in this mess in the first place?

[Darguth]

Wait, its against the law to check and make sure you actually are a citizen before you can vote?

So the NSA and record everything I do. The IRS can harass because of my political views. A drone can kill me without trial. Obama can send "presidential" updates to my Iphone. But a frickin state can't check to see who's here legally before you can vote for the jackasses that have put us in this mess in the first place?

Show me a way to do that without requiring us all to have state-mandated documentation of citizenship. I shouldn't have to carry around "my papers" with me to prove who I am or to exercise my rights.

[AuH20]

Wait, its against the law to check and make sure you actually are a citizen before you can vote?

So the NSA and record everything I do. The IRS can harass because of my political views. A drone can kill me without trial. Obama can send "presidential" updates to my Iphone. But a frickin state can't check to see who's here legally before you can vote for the jackasses that have put us in this mess in the first place?

Pretty much. Current citizens are the new illegals, and the illegals are the new citizens. Now shut up mundane, before you are audited.

[jllundqu]

I think I will vote several hundred times next election thanks to this ruling...

[Red Green]

The states should respond to this by legislating that you no longer have to show proof of age to buy tobacco or alcohol: you just have to sign a statement that you are 18 or 21 as the case may be.

[Kregisen]

The states should respond to this by legislating that you no longer have to show proof of age to buy tobacco or alcohol: you just have to sign a statement that you are 18 or 21 as the case may be.

Great point.

[heavenlyboy34]

Totally not surprised. That measure was passed overwhelmingly (I voted for it myself). Prop 201 at the time, IIRC. A few noisy fraudsters with enough money can screw everyone pretty easily. Such is constitutionalism. :(

[talkingpointes]

Why is anyone surprised? They need new voters and willing tax cows are the best, especially ones that couldn't question you if they wanted to because they speak another language usually.

I'm all for immigration, but not anymore in this system. This is really crazy when you think about it. It IS literally for votes. There is no compassion, they just want then under their payment scheme. Of course imprisoning a few legally would be nice to I'm sure. No other man on this earth will do more to expand prison then sheriff joe.

[AuH20]

Why is anyone surprised? They need new voters and willing tax cows are the best, especially ones that couldn't question you if they wanted to because they speak another language usually.

I'm all for immigration, but not anymore in this system. This is really crazy when you think about it. It IS literally for votes. There is no compassion, they just want then under their payment scheme. Of course imprisoning a few legally would be nice to I'm sure. No other man on this earth will do more to expand prison then sheriff joe.

1. Votes
2. Cheap labor that will never be upwardly mobile, without the capability to ever wake up
3. More dependents added to the rolls which will make defecit cutting an impossible task

[Carlybee]

Liberty movement best be trying to recruit if this is the case.

[FrankRep]

Liberty movement best be trying to recruit if this is the case.

The Democrats offer too much "free stuff," how do you compete against that?

[Carlybee]

The Democrats offer too much "free stuff," how do you compete against that?

I have no clue

[cbc58]

who filed suit against Arizona?

[Occam's Banana]

The Democrats offer too much "free stuff," how do you compete against that?

You don't. You can't. That's why the political means is and always will be such an utter fail when it comes to preserving liberty.

[Zippyjuan]

who filed suit against Arizona?

The case was "Arizona vs The Inter Tribal Council" http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-v-the-inter-tribal-council-of-arizona-inc/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

The court ruled that it was not necessary to require that somebody registering to vote present proof of US Citizenship at the time of registration but a voter must still meet requirements to be a voter including citizenship.


No. 12–71. Argued March 18, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires States to“accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4(a)(1). That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to“reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form,that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship. Respondents, a group of individual Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations, sought to enjoin that Arizona law. Ultimately, the District Court granted Arizona summary judgment on respondents’ claim that the NVRA pre-empts Arizona’s requirement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part but reversed as relevant here, holding that the state law’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement is pre-empted by the NVRA.

Held: Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA’s mandate thatStates “accept and use” the Federal Form.


Nonetheless, 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.”

[matt0611]

Show me a way to do that without requiring us all to have state-mandated documentation of citizenship. I shouldn't have to carry around "my papers" with me to prove who I am or to exercise my rights.

If only citizens can vote and anyone can show up, how do you propose people prove they are who they say they are and that they're citizens?

You have to carry around "your papers" to drive on a public street. But for some reason we can't require people to prove who they say they are when they are voting? Why?

[LibForestPaul]

I am sure the solution will be for all citizens to have biometric anal probing and pud identification. Illegals will continue as such and don't need no stinkin papers.