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

[CountDeMoney]

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.

They want to undo constitutional amendments, it'll take more amendments.

[Admiral Yi]

You might want to read that again Meri. 

[merithyn]

You might want to read that again Meri. 

Too many nots. I'll just say, "Okay, sounds good" and leave it at that. Too tired to try to parse out "Yi-isms".

[Valmy]

What kind of non-immigrant...so a naturally born person...

So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?

It seems Meri is saying is the sort of naturally born citizen that comprises 1/3rd of the total number?

[CountDeMoney]

So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?

The homeless.  Native Americans.  Rural elderly.

[Admiral Yi]

What kind of non-immigrant...so a naturally born person...

So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?

It seems Meri is saying is the sort of naturally born citizen that comprises 1/3rd of the total number?

Right.  And in my mind this is very relevant to the discussion about proof of citizenship.

[The Brain]

I think it makes sense to disallow anything that requires even minor admin from a citizen. The IRS can lead the way.

[Valmy]

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.

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.

Admitting to committing a federal crime eh?  I am glad the NSA is probably reading this board.

[derspiess]

So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?

The homeless.  Native Americans.  Rural elderly.

And Donald Duck, Jive Turkey, etc.

[CountDeMoney]

So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?

The homeless.  Native Americans.  Rural elderly.

And Donald Duck, Jive Turkey, etc.

Nice.   We can include fetuses too.  Fuckstick.

[derspiess]

Nice.   We can include fetuses too.  Fuckstick.

[KRonn]

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.

That's my understanding also. And apparently some in Congress are moving to make changes to the law. You need to be a citizen to vote, so it shouldn't be an onerous burden to show citizenship, birth certificate, or what ever else qualifies, like maybe even a driver's license in most states.

[garbon]

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.

That's my understanding also. And apparently some in Congress are moving to make changes to the law. You need to be a citizen to vote, so it shouldn't be an onerous burden to show citizenship, birth certificate, or what ever else qualifies, like maybe even a driver's license in most states.

Why make it harder for people to vote with ostensibly no gain?

[Admiral Yi]

Surely even opponents of this sort of law can see that the number of non-citizens caught voting by a system that requires no proof is not a very good proxy for the total number of non-citizens who vote.  It could be a handful, it could be tons, at this point there's no easy way to know.

[garbon]

Surely even opponents of this sort of law can see that the number of non-citizens caught voting by a system that requires no proof is not a very good proxy for the total number of non-citizens who vote.  It could be a handful, it could be tons, at this point there's no easy way to know.

If there isn't evidence of a problem - why take steps to correct it?