Wednesday, March 20, 2013

High court weighs Arizona voter-registration law

-Posters notes-

I find this curious that the Federal Government would ignore the states when they pretty much beg for any help on any thing, yet when they want their way, they instill their “dominance”  over the states when the states try to govern themselves after it’s clear the Federal Government brushes off the states to the back burner. It’s clear the Federal Government cares nothing for others outside of D.C. but let us not forget this country is formed with “STATES” not one big land mass that’s equal to the bases of oh lets say the former Soviet Union, this country is made up of many states, yet the many states have different laws. Ok well mostly the same laws, but there are differences in each state that make up what that state stands for. For instance, it’s ok to have casinos in Nevada, but not ok for most other states to even allow any form of gambling. There are dry county states, while other states allow alcohol to be sold and served 24 hours a day. Were not called “United States of America” for nothing; It’s time for the Federal Government to allow the “States” to govern themselves on issue that interfere with each state, and stop dictating and pushing the Governments agenda onto states that are being torn apart by issues that tear at the very foundation of what makes this country America.

Arizona needs to be left alone, allowing that state to pass laws to “help” the state is the only way to keep the state sound. The laws are already on the books, yet it’s the Government that refuses to allow police to enforce the laws that have been on the books for years. Arizona has a right to put laws to a vote for the “people” to decide on, and it’s been very clear that people voted into law the new immigration bill, allowing police to make sure residents, travelers, and visitors if they are legal to be in this country to begin with. The “racist” card has been played out so many times it’s like drinking water, the only people that think it’s racist to be asked for an I.D. card or green card are those in this country illegal or those that are trying to get illegal relatives into this country.

Before I go any further I want to stress to my readers that I’m not a racist, I care nothing about what race others are, I admit to being prejudice against those that come to this country illegally, refuse to truly become green card holding citizens, prostitute themselves to low paying jobs, and send most of the money back to their home, paying the “coyotes” they’ve become slaves to, or for promises to get more of their family members into this country. My feelings about immigrants are the same no matter what country you come from. You want to come to this country, make a better life for yourself, have better opportunities then what you had in your country, then come to America. However come here legally, get your green card, become a productive citizen, pay your taxes, learn this countries language, don’t live off of welfare, demand this country change or even erase American holidays to accommodate you. Remember you left your country and came to a new one, it’s your responsibility to acclimate yourself to this country, not demand this country bend over backwards to placate you.

Now onto this new so called “questionable” law that Arizona is trying to get passed.


The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the federal "motor-voter law," allows people to register to vote while renewing drivers licenses or applying for social services. As part of the documentation process, folks have to say that they're American citizens.

Arizona, however, approved something called Proposition 200, which gave the federal law a little touch-up -- those registering can't just say they're American citizens; in this state, folks are expected to prove it.

And this, in turn, has led to an interesting Supreme Court case.

Supreme Court justices expressed some skepticism on Monday about an Arizona law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.

The legal question before the nine justices is whether the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law is trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which outlines various ways in which people can register to vote in federal elections.

That law requires no proof of citizenship. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.

The case comes just two weeks after the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Voting Rights Act. (Curiously, Justice Scalia appears to have been obnoxious during oral arguments in both cases.)

The legal question today was a little different, and arguably more straightforward: are states able to create new voter-registration restrictions under the motor-voter law? Arizona says yes; the Obama administration says no.

But let's not brush past the potential significance of the answer. Rick Hasen, an elections-law expert at UC-Irvine, told Sahil Kapur the "implications of this sleeper case could be profound." If the justices rule in Arizona's favor, and states can bypass the existing federal voter-registration form, "it could have a major effect on the power of the federal government to impose rules on states for running congressional elections."

Supporters of the federal law seemed cautiously optimistic after this morning's arguments. Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in a statement, "A majority of the Court, including Justice Kennedy, appeared to recognize that the entire point of having a single Federal form was to streamline the voter registration process, and that approving Arizona's law would pave the way for a patchwork of 50 state forms. We are optimistic that that recognition will lead the Court to strike down Arizona's law and respect Congress' power to protect the right to vote in Federal elections."

Whether that optimism is misplaced is unclear.

As is often the case, the most ambivalent was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who channeled the views of both sides during different parts of the argument.

At one point, Kennedy wrestled with whether Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement crosses a line. He asked the state’s attorney general, who was defending the law, whether states may also require proof of one’s address or date of birth when registering to vote. If so, he posited, then the federal requirement “is not worth very much.”

At another point, he launched a defense of Arizona’s actions in principle and took issue with some of the reasoning by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona.

A ruling is expected over the summer.

No comments:

Post a Comment