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

[Admiral Yi]

So if the question is whether Arizona should require voter ID to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, your position is "I don't know"?

I'm mildly opposed at present.  If new information came to light demonstrating that voting by illegals is a bigger issue than believed, my position might change.

woops

[Jacob]

So if the question is whether Arizona should require voter ID to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, your position is "I don't know"?

I'm mildly opposed at present.  If new information came to light demonstrating that voting by illegals is a bigger issue than believed, my position might change.

woops

Cool. That was a little hard to discern, but it makes sense.

[Admiral Yi]

Cool. That was a little hard to discern, but it makes sense.

The only reason it's hard to discern is because people don't bother paying attention to language and words, they just slot it into "In Favor/Opposed" like good Zoroastrians and go from there.

Analogous to the "Bush lied about WMD" argument.

[fhdz]

I like Zoroastrians, but I'd make a terrible one.

[Jacob]

The only reason it's hard to discern is because people don't bother paying attention to language and words, they just slot it into "In Favor/Opposed" like good Zoroastrians and go from there.

Analogous to the "Bush lied about WMD" argument.

There is definitely something to what you say about slotting people into binary "for/against" categories. People even do it to me sometimes, if you can believe it.

[DGuller]

The only reason it's hard to discern is because people don't bother paying attention to language and words, they just slot it into "In Favor/Opposed" like good Zoroastrians and go from there.

Analogous to the "Bush lied about WMD" argument.

There is definitely something to what you say about slotting people into binary "for/against" categories. People even do it to me sometimes, if you can believe it.

Being recognized for having subtle and complicated views on politics is very hard.  I can give some pointers on how you can accomplish that if you're interested. 

[katmai]

I like Zoroastrians, but I'd make a terrible one.

Just can't commit to any religion can you?!

[Razgovory]

Right.  Good point.

Seriously, pestering someone with endless questions, without ever making a discernible point and standing behind it, is a signature Raz debating technique.     Actually....

And suddenly it dawns on you where I picked it up.

[garbon]

Cool. That was a little hard to discern, but it makes sense.

The only reason it's hard to discern is because people don't bother paying attention to language and words, they just slot it into "In Favor/Opposed" like good Zoroastrians and go from there.

Analogous to the "Bush lied about WMD" argument.

Perhaps that's because it isn't such a nuanced view. I'd change my opinion too if it turns out a bunch of fraud was occurring.

[Berkut]

What standard of evidence is that Berkut?  You're the one who said he knows something.  I never said you have to know something.

Excellent non-response.

[The Brain]

The only reason it's hard to discern is because people don't bother paying attention to language and words, they just slot it into "In Favor/Opposed" like good Zoroastrians and go from there.

Analogous to the "Bush lied about WMD" argument.

There is definitely something to what you say about slotting people into binary "for/against" categories. People even do it to me sometimes, if you can believe it.

Being recognized for having subtle and complicated views on politics is very hard.  I can give some pointers on how you can accomplish that if you're interested. 

[Admiral Yi]

Excellent non-response.

[dps]

The reason the law was struck down was that it was rather clear that the "problem" those in Arizona who passed the law want solved is the problem that people who tend to not vote for them vote too much.

While I can understand their concern with such things, I don't think the USSC should really take much account for such concerns.

if it was clearly not a political move to disenfranchise actual voters, then I am sure such laws would be passed and upheld without comment.

No, the reason is was struck down is because the feds have already regulated how voter registration works. Political motivation or the lack thereof shouldn't enter into it (though I haven't read the opinion).

Which is actually a problem.  If the law had been struck down because it was clearly discriminatory in its intent or affect, that would be a reasonable ruling.  But the obstensible reason for striking it down--that it had been pre-empted by Federal law might be a bit iffy.  I suppose (and at this point I should say that I haven't actually read the decision, just some summaries) that the basis for the ruling is Article 1, Section 4:  "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."  Technically, the Constitution would seem to give Congress the power to pre-empt state voting regulations as applied to the U.S. House and Senate, but not for other offices.  As a practical matter, having people being able to vote for their Congressmen and Senators, but not their state officials, would be an administrative headache, though I guess that would be Arizona's problem if that had been the ruling.