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
QuoteSupreme 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.
Quote
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.
Why wouldn't you need a proof of citezenship to vote?
This is retarded.
Quote"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.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:28:16 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2013, 05:33:28 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:28:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:38:18 PM
Mail registration is vote fraud. Everybody knows that.
QuoteThe vote was 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority
Seems not everyone is as intelligent as you.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:28:16 PM
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 have no idea if I do.
Passport?
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
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?
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
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/
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2013, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2013, 05:54:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:28:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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.
You might want to read that again Meri. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2013, 01:14:15 PM
You might want to read that again Meri. :hmm:
Too many nots. I'll just say, "Okay, sounds good" and leave it at that. Too tired to try to parse out "Yi-isms".
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? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2013, 01:21:15 PM
So what sort of naturally born citizen does not possess proof of citizenship?
The homeless. Native Americans. Rural elderly.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2013, 01:21:15 PM
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? :hmm:
Right. And in my mind this is very relevant to the discussion about proof of citizenship.
I think it makes sense to disallow anything that requires even minor admin from a citizen. The IRS can lead the way.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
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.
QuoteUsing 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2013, 01:21:15 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2013, 01:23:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2013, 01:21:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 08:21:29 AM
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?
What is your third line of defense Grab? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 08:21:29 AM
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.
There isn't any easy way to know specifically, but there are certainly ways to know in general that there is a problem worthy of taking action on that will *certainly* result in people who are perfectly legal voters being kept from voting. And so far, nobody has provided any evidence that there is any problem at all - not even subjective evidence.
I mean, other than the actual problem that laws like this are really intended to address, which is that too many people who don't vote Republican vote, resulting in non-Republicans being elected. That problem is very easy to quantify.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
What is your third line of defense Grab? :P
Because you have no answer to his defense?
It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 09:23:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
What is your third line of defense Grab? :P
Because you have no answer to his defense?
It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending :P
The problem of poor and ethnic people voting for Democrats is hardly theoretical or unknowable.
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:26:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 09:23:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
What is your third line of defense Grab? :P
Because you have no answer to his defense?
It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending :P
The problem of poor and ethnic people voting for Democrats is hardly theoretical or unknowable.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 09:23:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
What is your third line of defense Grab? :P
Because you have no answer to his defense?
It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending :P
Exactly. /my question also wasn't entirely honest as it isn't surprising that it was a law like this comes out of a virulently anti-immigrant state like Arizona.
Berkut:
I disagree. A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.
But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.
And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
Berkut:
I disagree. A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.
But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.
And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.
Birth certificates copies aren't free. Pretty easy to see that many individuals might want to use that money for something else (NY lists fee as 30 bucks).
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 09:23:58 AM
Because you have no answer to his defense?
It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending :P
Because he already switched from his first line of defense to his second.
Unknown. Don't know where you get unknowable from.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
Berkut:
I disagree. A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.
But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.
And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.
You know that a drivers' license doesn't count as proof of citizenship, since immigrants can have drivers' licenses, too, right? The proof would have to be via birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. And birth certificates ARE a hassle to track down for many people, and cost usually anywhere between $15-$25 for a copy of one. Not every county or state will allow you to order one online or over the phone, so it may require additonal expenses for travel.
We've been through all of this before. It is an onerus task - the way things are set up now - to meet this requirement. Make it simple, easy, and free to prove citizenship and I'm all for this. As it is now, I think it's ridiculous to even suggest it, much less enshrine it in law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:31:32 AM
Don't know where you get unknowable from.
From your post
Quoteat this point there's no easy way to know.
And the fact that nobody has been able to show any proof of the electoral mischief this law was allegedly designed to address. I am not sure why you keep ignoring the big fat elephant in the room that this law was designed to create a hurdle for groups who vote for the democrats to cast their vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.
It will certainly mean that fewer otherwise legal voters will vote. It will certainly be a significant number.
Hence Berkut's question of whether the motivation for the rule is the achieve that very end or for some other reason.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 09:29:50 AM
Birth certificates copies aren't free. Pretty easy to see that many individuals might want to use that money for something else (NY lists fee as 30 bucks).
And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 09:36:53 AM
And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.
My friend's mom is 71 years old, and that happened to her in rural Illinois. She needed to petition the state to get a new birth certificate made for her, which took upwards of two years of establishing that she existed.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 09:36:53 AM
And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.
My friend's mom is 71 years old, and that happened to her in rural Illinois. She needed to petition the state to get a new birth certificate made for her, which took upwards of two years of establishing that she existed.
But see, that's not really a hassle anymore than any other hassle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 19, 2013, 09:36:53 AM
And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.
My friend's mom is 71 years old, and that happened to her in rural Illinois. She needed to petition the state to get a new birth certificate made for her, which took upwards of two years of establishing that she existed.
But see, that's not really a hassle anymore than any other hassle.
Luckily, she was white. Can you imagine how hard it would have been had she been Mexican?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
Berkut:
I disagree. A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.
Why increase the hassle at all if there isn't any evidence that there is a problem that said hassle would solve?
You can tell this is a 100% political move.
Just look at the break down of support for all these various "Protect the Vote" efforts. It is consistently nearly 100% Republican. That isn't some bizarre coincidence.
What is sad is that it really does show how little most people actually care about individual rights.
Quote from: fahdiz on June 19, 2013, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
:rolleyes:
That's actually true, dude.
I guess it is. Probably also a good thing she wasn't Zimbabwean.
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 09:58:58 AM
Why increase the hassle at all if there isn't any evidence that there is a problem that said hassle would solve?
Good question. If you go back and read my post that started this flurry, you'll notice I wasn't advocating for proof of citizenship laws. I was merely pointing out the flaw in asserting that the problem being addressed is tiny.
It may be tiny, it may be huge. It may be huge yet the cost of the cure is still not worth it.
I don't get the Mexican birth certificate thing. Are we talking about a citizen or an illegal?
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
I guess it is. Probably also a good thing she wasn't Zimbabwean.
Eh most people do not get irrationally suspicious of black folks being illegal immigrants unless they have some sort of crazy accent.
Anyway if we are going to do something like this we first need to implement a federal system that quickly verifies people's citizenship at the polls at no cost or effort on their part. If the Republicans implemented such a system then I think we could all agree they were acting in good faith on this. Of course such a system would not benefit them politically in anyway...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 10:04:07 AM
I don't get the Mexican birth certificate thing. Are we talking about a citizen or an illegal?
I was saying that my friend's mom spent two years trying to prove who she was so that she could get a replacement birth certificate. As a white woman, it was considered relatively easy. Had she been of Mexican descent, however, it probably would have been a good bit harder.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 10:06:33 AM
Eh most people do not get irrationally suspicious of black folks being illegal immigrants unless they have some sort of crazy accent.
Anyway if we are going to do something like this we first need to implement a federal system that quickly verifies people's citizenship at the polls at no cost or effort on their part. If the Republicans implemented such a system then I think we could all agree they were acting in good faith on this. Of course such a system would not benefit them politically in anyway...
Exactly.
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 10:08:50 AM
Had she been of Mexican descent, however, it probably would have been a good bit harder.
How so?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 19, 2013, 10:08:50 AM
Had she been of Mexican descent, however, it probably would have been a good bit harder.
How so?
Accents raise suspicions.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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?
US laws are that you need to be a citizen to vote. I think that's probably true in most countries. Yeah, it may take some effort for some to get a birth certificate or other proof, so I don't know what can be done about that.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on June 19, 2013, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
:rolleyes:
That's actually true, dude.
I guess it is. Probably also a good thing she wasn't Zimbabwean.
That would not have been possible. Rhodesian maybe.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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?
US laws are that you need to be a citizen to vote. I think that's probably true in most countries. Yeah, it may take some effort for some to get a birth certificate or other proof, so I don't know what can be done about that.
I'd suggest doing nothing as why enact a cure when you don't have evidence that a problem is occurring?
As long as Americans are happy to be ruled by foreigners then I don't see the problem.
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:07:08 PM
As long as Americans are happy to be ruled by foreigners then I don't see the problem.
Eh maybe they could do a better job?
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 01:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:07:08 PM
As long as Americans are happy to be ruled by foreigners then I don't see the problem.
Eh maybe they could do a better job?
Maybe they could drag American record-keeping screaming and kicking into the 20th century.
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 01:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:07:08 PM
As long as Americans are happy to be ruled by foreigners then I don't see the problem.
Eh maybe they could do a better job?
Maybe they could drag American record-keeping screaming and kicking into the 20th century.
That is not what the founders intended :angry:
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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?
US laws are that you need to be a citizen to vote. I think that's probably true in most countries. Yeah, it may take some effort for some to get a birth certificate or other proof, so I don't know what can be done about that.
I'd suggest doing nothing as why enact a cure when you don't have evidence that a problem is occurring?
I don't think the issue is about having problems or not, it's about doing it right and as the law states. What do other countries do for registering to vote? Is it so onerous that the US couldn't possibly abide by its own laws?
As for problems, even if minor, Arizona claims it has had problems which it's trying to address with it requiring proof of citizenship.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
I don't think the issue is about having problems or not, it's about doing it right and as the law states. What do other countries do for registering to vote? Is it so onerous that the US couldn't possibly abide by its own laws?
As I said it seems logical that step 1 would be making it less onerous so it could be easily enforced.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
I don't think the issue is about having problems or not, it's about doing it right and as the law states. What do other countries do for registering to vote? Is it so onerous that the US couldn't possibly abide by its own laws?
If there isn't an issue, why spend time and money creating a solution?
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
As for problems, even if minor, Arizona claims it has had problems which it's trying to address with it requiring proof of citizenship.
Hmph, Arizona also claims that immigrants are demonic.
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.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 01:21:45 PMI don't think the issue is about having problems or not, it's about doing it right and as the law states. What do other countries do for registering to vote? Is it so onerous that the US couldn't possibly abide by its own laws?
As for problems, even if minor, Arizona claims it has had problems which it's trying to address with it requiring proof of citizenship.
I believe Arizona's problem is that too many of the non-white and poor people vote for Democrats, so it's better to make it mor e difficult for them to cast their vote.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2013, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 17, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
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?
US laws are that you need to be a citizen to vote. I think that's probably true in most countries. Yeah, it may take some effort for some to get a birth certificate or other proof, so I don't know what can be done about that.
I'd suggest doing nothing as why enact a cure when you don't have evidence that a problem is occurring?
I don't think the issue is about having problems or not,
Really?
I mean....really?
You don't think the issue is about whether there is a problem or not?
Shouldn't that be the genesis of all calls to action - some problem that needs resolution?
Quote
it's about doing it right
If there is no problem then it is being done right already, pretty much by definition.
Right?
So glad we could agree, there isn't a problem, things are being done right, no new laws necessary.
Quote
and as the law states.
Which law is that? And what does it state?
Quote
What do other countries do for registering to vote?
So you think we should do what some other country does? Which ones? If I can find one that doesn't require everyone to show proof of citzenship to vote, will you agree that we don't then need a new law?
And is this about registering to vote, or actually voting?
Quote
Is it so onerous that the US couldn't possibly abide by its own laws?
That doesn't even make any sense.
:lol: I imagine he's talking about the laws that determine who can vote Throbby.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 01:55:07 PM
:lol: I imagine he's talking about the laws that determine who can vote Throbby.
Can't be - he said something about the US cannot abide by its own laws.
We know that in fact the US does, by and large, abide by the laws governing who can vote, so clearly he must be talking about something else entirely.
How do we know that?
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 02:07:34 PM
How do we know otherwise?
We don't. Now please answer my question.
Scotty is reporting that the goalposts cannot move any faster. He doesn't have the power.
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 02:10:16 PM
Scotty is reporting that the goalposts cannot move any faster. He doesn't have the power.
:lol:
No kidding.
I've answered your question Yi. Absent evidence of some kind of problem, I am going to assume there isn't a problem.
You do realize that if you hold the standard of evidence such as you are, the proposed law won't solve your imaginary problem either, right?
After all, how can we be sure there aren't people simply counterfeiting whatever "proof" is required? If there were people counterfeiting their proof of citzenship, by definition we would not know about it. Therefore we need even more laws...ad infinitum.
What standard of evidence is that Berkut? You're the one who said he knows something. I never said you have to know something.
:unsure: I think Raz is rubbing off on Yister.
Right. Good point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
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. :hmm: Actually....
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2013, 04:02:39 PM
Seriously, pestering someone with endless questions, without ever making a discernible point and standing behind it, is a signature Raz debating technique. :hmm: Actually....
Totally mischaracterizing my position, spicing it up with some gratuitous insults, then when confronted on it, claiming it was my fault for confusing you, is quintessential Guller.
Endless questions: I asked Berkut one.
Discernable point: the number of illegal immigrants who vote cannot be known.
Times I have run away from this discernable point: zero.
Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 04:07:21 PM
Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.
You also both got punked for thinking Brain was on your side.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:06:49 PM
Discernable point: the number of illegal immigrants who vote cannot be known.
If it cannot be known, how do you know it is a problem of a magnitude that requires action?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 04:07:21 PM
Berk said we know something. Then suddenly it was about knowing otherwise.
You also both got punked for thinking Brain was on your side.
How do you know which side I'm on? As far as I'm aware, I never posted anything other than insults in this thread.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 04:15:51 PM
If it cannot be known, how do you know it is a problem of a magnitude that requires action?
I don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:17:30 PMI don't.
So if the question is whether Arizona should require voter ID to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, your position is "I don't know"?
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 04:22:55 PM
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
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:24:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 04:22:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 04:37:03 PM
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.
I like Zoroastrians, but I'd make a terrible one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:42:58 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 05:05:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:42:58 PMThe 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.
:yes: 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. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on June 19, 2013, 04:57:05 PM
I like Zoroastrians, but I'd make a terrible one.
Just can't commit to any religion can you?! :angry:
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2013, 04:02:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
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. :hmm: Actually....
And suddenly it dawns on you where I picked it up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 04:37:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 03:50:12 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2013, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 05:05:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2013, 04:42:58 PMThe 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.
:yes: 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. :)
^_^
Quote from: Kleves on June 19, 2013, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
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.