Uncategorized

SCOTUS Rules On Voter ID

In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), passed in 1993, took precedence over Arizona’s Proposition 200, a 2004 law allowing state election officials to turn away voters who did not provide proof of citizenship in addition to the voter registration form…

In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), passed in 1993, took precedence over Arizona’s Proposition 200, a 2004 law allowing state election officials to turn away voters who did not provide proof of citizenship in addition to the voter registration form mandated by the NVRA when voting in federal elections.

The federal form used under the NVRA allows voters to check “yes” or “no” when asked if they are U.S. citizens, and to sign the form, swearing under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed American citizens. Arizona’s law required prospective voters to supply additional documentation to prove their citizenship, such as a driver’s license, state-issued identification card, passport, a birth certificate or proof of naturalization.

The case, Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, revolved around whether the state law conflicted with the federal law and prevented tens of thousands of Arizonians from voting in federal elections because they could not provide the supplemental documentation required by the state. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Arizona officials must accept the NVRA forms. The Supreme Court took up the case after the state of Arizona appealed that decision.

An attorney for the state of Arizona argued that the NVRA was inadequate and was essentially allowing people to vote under an honor system. Three other states with similar voting laws – Alabama, Georgia and Kansas – urged the Court to uphold Proposition 200’s requirements.

Patricia A. Millett, who represented the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and other groups challenging the Arizona law, insisted that statements made under oath “are proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases involving the death penalty, and should thus be sufficient for purposes of voting.

“This decision reaffirms the principle that states may not undermine this critical law’s effectiveness by adding burdens not required under federal law,” said Laughlin McDonald, special counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a statement. “In doing so, the court has taken a vital step in ensuring the ballot remains free, fair, and accessible for all citizens.”

In the majority opinion, written by conservative justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that federal form had to be accepted as sufficient. “Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form,” the decision read.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas filed separate dissenting opinions.

Thomas said the Constitution gives states the power “to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.” Alito said the language of the NVRA was ambiguous and that he read it to meant that states could accept and use the federal form as part of their voter registration process but could require additional documentation as well.

According to the ACLU, an estimated 13 million people nationwide lack documentary proof of their citizenship, and 90 percent of the over 31,000 U.S. citizens whose voter registration applications were denied in Arizona were actually born in the United States.

The decision in this case comes in the midst of heated national battles over both voter identification and immigration laws.

amy lazenby

Amy Lazenby is the associate opinion editor at FITSNews. She is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz or email her at amy@fitsnews.com.

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Escaping Your Timeshare Contract Safely & Effectively

FITSForum
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

46 comments

tomstickler June 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm

And this decision’s applicability to South Carolina’s “Voter ID” law would be . . . ?

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm

SC’s law was cleared by the U.S. District Court last year and is in effect now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-usa-campaign-south-carolina-idUSBRE89916820121010
No applicability in SC as far as I can tell b/c AG Wilson said the state would take a “broad view” of excuses for not having an ID. Looks like they weren’t taking a “broad view” in AZ.

Reply
EJB June 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm

I believe Arizona’s law was for proof of citizenship, ours is for proof of identity.

Reply
? June 17, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Mandated ID’s go along with the government agenda to brand its tax cattle, so I suspect it will make strange bedfellows in lobbying, court and general vote getting.

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm

I defer to Ms. Lazenby’s answer to “GreenvilleLwyr” – and his point – above.

Reply
tomstickler June 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm

And this decision’s applicability to South Carolina’s “Voter ID” law would be . . . ?

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm

SC’s law was cleared by the U.S. District Court last year and is in effect now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-usa-campaign-south-carolina-idUSBRE89916820121010
No applicability in SC as far as I can tell b/c AG Wilson said the state would take a “broad view” of excuses for not having an ID. Looks like they weren’t taking a “broad view” in AZ.

Reply
EJB June 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm

I believe Arizona’s law was for proof of citizenship, ours is for proof of identity.

Reply
? June 17, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Mandated ID’s go along with the government agenda to brand its tax cattle, so I suspect it will make strange bedfellows in lobbying, court and general vote getting.

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm

I defer to Ms. Lazenby’s answer to “GreenvilleLwyr” – and his point – above.

Reply
Larry Shaw June 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Hahahahaha!

Reply
Larry Shaw June 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Hahahahaha!

Reply
Jose' June 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm

I no need your green card gringo.

Guadalupe’ is going to have our baby here and my vote is as good as yours ese.

Free health care, free food, no payroll taxes(you pay me in cash)…you gringos are bery dumb…but you keep paying da bills and tings will be ok.

Reply
mph June 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Hard to see why the Republicans are looking like the Whig Party of the 21st Century.

Reply
Jose' June 17, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Si Senor. Guadalupe’ and mi conozco donde nuestro tortillas son frito y no es la fiesta de mayores puta’s.(GOP)

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Ah, so now we have “voter babies” in addition to “terror babies.” Please.

Reply
Jose' June 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm

I no need your green card gringo.

Guadalupe’ is going to have our baby here and my vote is as good as yours ese.

Free health care, free food, no payroll taxes(you pay me in cash)…you gringos are bery dumb…but you keep paying da bills and tings will be ok.

Reply
mph June 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Hard to see why the Republicans are looking like the Whig Party of the 21st Century.

Reply
Jose' June 17, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Si Senor. Guadalupe’ and mi conozco donde nuestro tortillas son frito y no es la fiesta de mayores puta’s.(GOP)

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Ah, so now we have “voter babies” in addition to “terror babies.” Please.

Reply
EJB June 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Not to put salt in open wounds but I think the issue here would call into question “nullification” laws. SCOTUS has already ruled 0bamaCare constitutional so wouldn’t any “nullification” law would be struck down?

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL

Reply
EJB June 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Not to put salt in open wounds but I think the issue here would call into question “nullification” laws. SCOTUS has already ruled 0bamaCare constitutional so wouldn’t any “nullification” law would be struck down?

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL

Reply
MGTT June 17, 2013 at 3:56 pm

If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind), you’re naïve to the breaking point. Note also that a driver’s license and SSN are NOT indicators of citizenship, as resident aliens may have both.

Reply
MGTT June 17, 2013 at 3:56 pm

If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind), you’re naïve to the breaking point. Note also that a driver’s license and SSN are NOT indicators of citizenship, as resident aliens may have both.

Reply
mph June 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm

If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind)…”

ACORN disbanded three years ago but still lives on as the boogeyman of the Republicans. There’s a poll that showed a majority of Republicans believed that ACORN stole the 2012 election. Too funny.

Reply
Ima Moran June 28, 2014 at 8:20 pm

ACORN simply reorganized itself. It still alive and well.
ps my cat has to have ID

Reply
mph June 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm

If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind)…”

ACORN disbanded three years ago but still lives on as the boogeyman of the Republicans. There’s a poll that showed a majority of Republicans believed that ACORN stole the 2012 election. Too funny.

Reply
GreenvilleLwyr June 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Not to quibble, but this issue had nothing to do with Voter ID as passed by the mouth breathers in Columbia. This is about requiring proof of citizenship at the time of registration, a different issue altogether.

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Hi, GreenvilleLwyr,
You’re not quibbling; you’re correct. This ruling is about proof of citizenship at the time of registration, not identification at the polling booth. It has nothing to do with SC’s Voter ID law (which was upheld by a U.S District Court) and is not applicable to it. I do not write the headlines, and I’m sorry if the one accompanying this piece has been a source of confusion.
My last sentence, “The decision in this case comes in the midst of heated national battles over both voter identification and immigration laws,” is an effort to put this decision into national context, as I believe increased restrictions on voter registration and increased voter ID requirements are both attempts to decrease voter accessibility and suppress voter turnout when there is no documented fraud that would deem them necessary. The connection to the immigration debate is plain.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
ABL

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of confused by the headline.

Reply
GreenvilleLwyr June 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Not to quibble, but this issue had nothing to do with Voter ID as passed by the mouth breathers in Columbia. This is about requiring proof of citizenship at the time of registration, a different issue altogether.

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Hi, GreenvilleLwyr,
You’re not quibbling; you’re correct. This ruling is about proof of citizenship at the time of registration, not identification at the polling booth. It has nothing to do with SC’s Voter ID law (which was upheld by a U.S District Court) and is not applicable to it. I do not write the headlines, and I’m sorry if the one accompanying this piece has been a source of confusion.
My last sentence, “The decision in this case comes in the midst of heated national battles over both voter identification and immigration laws,” is an effort to put this decision into national context, as I believe increased restrictions on voter registration and increased voter ID requirements are both attempts to decrease voter accessibility and suppress voter turnout when there is no documented fraud that would deem them necessary. The connection to the immigration debate is plain.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
ABL

Reply
Curious June 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of confused by the headline.

Reply
MashPotato June 17, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Real, actual news. So goddamn refreshing.

Reply
MashPotato June 17, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Real, actual news. So goddamn refreshing.

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 18, 2013 at 11:39 am

In response to this ruling, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has submitted an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act that would “permit states to require proof of citizenship
for registration to vote in elections for federal office.”

Read more here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/scotus-voter-id-ted-cruz-92931.html#ixzz2WaBLEHW7

Reply
Curious June 18, 2013 at 11:51 am

Anybody shocked?

Reply
Average Joe June 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm

No, and not surprised it was Cruz who jumped on it.

Reply
Amy Brandstadter Lazenby June 18, 2013 at 11:39 am

In response to this ruling, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has submitted an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act that would “permit states to require proof of citizenship
for registration to vote in elections for federal office.”

Read more here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/scotus-voter-id-ted-cruz-92931.html#ixzz2WaBLEHW7

Reply
Curious June 18, 2013 at 11:51 am

Anybody shocked?

Reply
Average Joe June 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm

No, and not surprised it was Cruz who jumped on it.

Reply
lawzoo June 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Alito and Thomas. Abbot and Costello. Martin and Lewis. Rowan and Martin. Cheech and Chong. Dumb and Dumber. Moe,Larry ,and Curley.

Pick the one that doesn’t belong?

Reply
lawzoo June 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Alito and Thomas. Abbot and Costello. Martin and Lewis. Rowan and Martin. Cheech and Chong. Dumb and Dumber. Moe,Larry ,and Curley.

Pick the one that doesn’t belong?

Reply

Leave a Comment