Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote

[jimmy olsen]

Not an unexpected decision.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/17/19003391-supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-law-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote?lite

Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote

By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that requires people to submit proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The vote was 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that a 1993 federal law known as the Motor Voter Act takes precedence over the Arizona law because of its requirement that states "accept and use" the federal voter registration form.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two members of the court's conservative wing, dissented.

Only a handful of states have similar laws, which the states say are meant to reduce voter fraud. Civil rights groups said the Arizona law was an effort to discourage voting by legal immigrants, and they worried that more states would have followed if the Supreme Court had upheld it.

Groups opposed to the Arizona law said that the court had blocked an attempt at voter suppression.

"Today's decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law," said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal registration form requires people to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. States can use their own forms, but they must be equivalent to the federal form.

The Arizona law, known as Proposition 200 and adopted by Arizona voters in 2004, went further than the federal form by requiring applicants to provide proof of citizenship. Arizona has used the law to reject 30,000 voter applications, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Challengers to the law argued that it put an extra burden on naturalized citizens. Using a naturalization document as proof would require an applicant to register in person, as opposed to through the mail, because federal law prohibits copying the document.

A federal appeals court said that Arizona had gone too far and essentially rejected the federal form. Arizona said it was not a rejection of the federal form any more than asking for ID at an airport is a rejection of a plane ticket.

The Supreme Court ruling pointed out that Arizona still has an option: It can ask the federal government to include state-specific instructions on the federal form, and go to court if the government says no.

Three other states — Alabama, Georgia and Kansas — have laws almost identical to Arizona's and joined it in urging the court to uphold the additional requirement for proof of citizenship.

At an oral argument in March, Thomas Horne, a lawyer for Arizona, told the justices that the state was within its rights to ask for additional information beyond the simple federal form.

"It's extremely inadequate," Horne said. "It's essentially an honor system. It does not do the job."

"Well," answered Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "that's what the federal system decided was enough."

The court's conservatives had appeared sympathetic to the Arizona side. Scalia said during the argument that federal law clearly empowers the states to take additional action to assess a potential voter's eligibility.

"Under oath is not proof at all," he said. "It's just a statement."

Patricia Millett, a lawyer for groups opposed to the law, countered: "Statements under oath in a criminal case are proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases that result in execution.

"It's a very serious oath," she said.

Arizona is known for its tough stance on immigration. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down some key provisions of a state law meant to crack down on illegal immigration.

But it let stand the most controversial part — a requirement that police making traffic stops check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

[11B4V]

Search for Missing Mac and Cheese Ends With Stabbing

(AP) – Some people really, really like their macaroni and cheese: Two Florida brothers got into a tussle over missing macaroni and cheese that ended with one stabbing the other in the stomach, say authorities. Randy Zipperer was angrily looking for the missing foodstuff when Edward Zipperer, 47, joined the search—then spilled a beer belonging to his 49-year-old brother, deputies say. That set off an argument inside the Deltona home that led to the older brother stabbing the younger one.

According to the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Randy Zipperer told deputies he didn't mean to hurt his brother, adding he just "poked him a little with the knife." Edward Zipperer had a small puncture wound, and deputies recovered a 6-inch knife with blood on the tip. Randy Zipperer remained in the Volusia County Jail early today. He faces an aggravated battery charge.

[Siege]

Why wouldn't you need a proof of citezenship to vote?
This is retarded.

[Siege]

"Today's decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law," said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

What the fuck? What kind of legallized inmigrant does not posses a copy of their citizenship?
My shit is in my wife's safe, with plenty of copies.

[Jacob]

What the fuck? What kind of legallized inmigrant does not posses a copy of their citizenship?
My shit is in my wife's safe, with plenty of copies.

So... I guess you'll just mail those documents to the state when you register to vote?

[Siege]

What the fuck? What kind of legallized inmigrant does not posses a copy of their citizenship?
My shit is in my wife's safe, with plenty of copies.

So... I guess you'll just mail those documents to the state when you register to vote?

No. Go and register at driver license place like everybody i know does.

Mail registration is vote fraud. Everybody knows that.

[crazy canuck]

Mail registration is vote fraud. Everybody knows that.

The vote was 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority

Seems not everyone is as intelligent as you.

[Admiral Yi]

What the fuck? What kind of legallized inmigrant does not posses a copy of their citizenship?

The more relevant question is what kind of non-immigrant citizen does not possess proof of citizenship.

[Razgovory]

I have no idea if I do.

[Siege]

Passport?

[garbon]

Passport?

I generally try not to carry that around all the time and definitely wouldn't make a dmv trip specifically to register to vote.

Why should we be discouraging people from registering to vote?

[Jacob]

Passport?

Only about 1/3 of Americans have passports, apparently - http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2012/01/30/record-number-of-americans-now-hold-passports/

[Kleves]

They're not saying such a requirement would be necessarily unconstitutional. They're just saying that federal law preempts the states from adding additional requirements. If federal law changed, that could change too.

[Razgovory]

Passport?

I generally try not to carry that around all the time and definitely wouldn't make a dmv trip specifically to register to vote.

Why should we be discouraging people from registering to vote?

Cause they might not vote Republican.

[merithyn]

What the fuck? What kind of legallized inmigrant does not posses a copy of their citizenship?

The more relevant question is what kind of non-immigrant citizen does not possess proof of citizenship.

I think you'd be surprised, actually. Part of my job requires that I verify legal residency in the US, either through citizenship or naturalization or legal immigration. Immigrants almost always have their papers handy. US-born citizens? Probably 1/3 of them have no idea how to go about getting a birth certificate.