SCOTUS Nixes AZ Voter Registration Law

[freedombecki]

That's right. The Supreme Court today invalidated the Arizona Voter Registration Law

In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter registration law | Reuters

What say you?

This is fundamental, settled, and accepted bedrock Constitutional jurisprudence: the states may not ignore, modify, amend, nullify, or otherwise attempt to preempt Federal law, Federal law is supreme. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

Today the Court held, in a seven-to-two decision by Justice Scalia, that Arizona’s law cannot stand in the face of the NVRA. The Court first recognized that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to dictate when, where, and how elections are held, and state election laws that conflict with federal ones are therefore preempted and without effect. The Court thus held that by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form, the NVRA effectively required the states to treat the federal form as sufficient evidence of citizenship without any additional proof, so that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was contrary to the NVRA, and therefore invalid.

Details: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

The ruling has nothing to do with immigration, those ‘undocumented,’ or whether the borders are properly secured or not. The issue concerned itself with only the question of whether the Elections Clause of the Constitution can be preempted by the states – and clearly the states may not.

If the state of Arizona, or any state, for that matter, believes a given voter is in violation of state or Federal elections laws, then that evidence can be used against that specific voter with regard to his alleged crime; but the states cannot presume every voter is a potential ‘fraud’ risk, and compel citizens to document their citizenship in a manner not required by Federal law.

Thank you, Clayton. The State of Arizona was encouraged to request a rewritten ballot to address some of their more valid concerns, and if the ruling is not in their favor, then they can request another SCOTUS hearing, according to some scuttlebutt I heard around the Hill. You're exactly right, though, it's presently at the behest of how the document reads at the time the SCOTUS made its decision, nothing more, and is therefore, strictly a legalistic matter that can be resolved in another way, namely timely petitioning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's right. The Supreme Court today invalidated the Arizona Voter Registration Law



Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter registration law | Reuters

What say you?

This is fundamental, settled, and accepted bedrock Constitutional jurisprudence: the states may not ignore, modify, amend, nullify, or otherwise attempt to preempt Federal law, Federal law is supreme. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

Today the Court held, in a seven-to-two decision by Justice Scalia, that Arizona’s law cannot stand in the face of the NVRA. The Court first recognized that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to dictate when, where, and how elections are held, and state election laws that conflict with federal ones are therefore preempted and without effect. The Court thus held that by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form, the NVRA effectively required the states to treat the federal form as sufficient evidence of citizenship without any additional proof, so that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was contrary to the NVRA, and therefore invalid.

Details: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

The ruling has nothing to do with immigration, those ‘undocumented,’ or whether the borders are properly secured or not. The issue concerned itself with only the question of whether the Elections Clause of the Constitution can be preempted by the states – and clearly the states may not.

If the state of Arizona, or any state, for that matter, believes a given voter is in violation of state or Federal elections laws, then that evidence can be used against that specific voter with regard to his alleged crime; but the states cannot presume every voter is a potential ‘fraud’ risk, and compel citizens to document their citizenship in a manner not required by Federal law.

Thank you, Clayton. The State of Arizona was encouraged to request a rewritten ballot to address some of their more valid concerns, and if the ruling is not in their favor, then they can request another SCOTUS hearing, according to some scuttlebutt I heard around the Hill. You're exactly right, though, it's presently at the behest of how the document reads at the time the SCOTUS made its decision, nothing more, and is therefore, strictly a legalistic matter that can be resolved in another way, namely timely petitioning.

The state of Arizona has its representatives in Congress, they’re free to advocate that NVRA be repealed or amended, as is the case with any other Federal law the state objects to.

 

[Sallow]

The AZ law is officially trashed.

There, there, doc. Feel better now?

Sorry Ms. Becki..

But I do feel better.

Do you? Good, because Obama is planning on importing 1.6 million Syrians into the USA this month according to my sources. With no one demanding their identifications, Democrats get 1.6 million votes to win the next election, with the promise of what Obama has wanted all along--passing sharia law.

Congratulations. The women in your family will now need protection from being murdered by their husbands, and women in colleges are fair game for honor killing if they wear yankee clothes.

That didn't happen when we invaded Iraq..and I highly doubt that will happen now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The AZ law is officially trashed.

There, there, doc. Feel better now?

Sorry Ms. Becki..

But I do feel better.

Do you? Good, because Obama is planning on importing 1.6 million Syrians into the USA this month according to my sources. With no one demanding their identifications, Democrats get 1.6 million votes to win the next election, with the promise of what Obama has wanted all along--passing sharia law.

Congratulations. The women in your family will now need protection from being murdered by their husbands, and women in colleges are fair game for honor killing if they wear yankee clothes.

Um, no.

If a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 established new requirements.

Where a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, if the voter does not qualify for one of the exemptions in Section 303(b)(3) of HAVA (described below), then he or she must submit one of the forms of identification required by Section 303(b)(2)(A) of HAVA the first time that he or she votes in a federal election. These forms of identification are: 1) a current and valid photo identification; or 2) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. If the voter does not present the required identification, Section 303(b)(2)(B) of HAVA provides that he or she may nonetheless cast a provisional ballot.

Civil Rights Division NVRA FAQs

Moreover, states remain at liberty to do background checks of the information provided to ensure that indeed a given voter is a citizen and resident of the state before being placed on the registration rolls.

 

[freedombecki]

Sorry Ms. Becki..

But I do feel better.

Do you? Good, because Obama is planning on importing 1.6 million Syrians into the USA this month according to my sources. With no one demanding their identifications, Democrats get 1.6 million votes to win the next election, with the promise of what Obama has wanted all along--passing sharia law.

Congratulations. The women in your family will now need protection from being murdered by their husbands, and women in colleges are fair game for honor killing if they wear yankee clothes.

Um, no.

If a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 established new requirements.

Where a person registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in a State, if the voter does not qualify for one of the exemptions in Section 303(b)(3) of HAVA (described below), then he or she must submit one of the forms of identification required by Section 303(b)(2)(A) of HAVA the first time that he or she votes in a federal election. These forms of identification are: 1) a current and valid photo identification; or 2) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. If the voter does not present the required identification, Section 303(b)(2)(B) of HAVA provides that he or she may nonetheless cast a provisional ballot.

Civil Rights Division NVRA FAQs

Moreover, states remain at liberty to do background checks of the information provided to ensure that indeed a given voter is a citizen and resident of the state before being placed on the registration rolls.

Thank you, Clayton.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is fundamental, settled, and accepted bedrock Constitutional jurisprudence: the states may not ignore, modify, amend, nullify, or otherwise attempt to preempt Federal law, Federal law is supreme. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

Section. 4.

Clause 1: 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.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's right. The Supreme Court today invalidated the Arizona Voter Registration Law

In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter registration law | Reuters

What say you?

I have no problem with it. Sounds like a sound decision. No wonder it was 7 - 2.

 

[freedombecki]

Sorry Ms. Becki..

But I do feel better.

Do you? Good, because Obama is planning on importing 1.6 million Syrians into the USA this month according to my sources. With no one demanding their identifications, Democrats get 1.6 million votes to win the next election, with the promise of what Obama has wanted all along--passing sharia law.

Congratulations. The women in your family will now need protection from being murdered by their husbands, and women in colleges are fair game for honor killing if they wear yankee clothes.

That didn't happen when we invaded Iraq..and I highly doubt that will happen now.

We'll see.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you? Good, because Obama is planning on importing 1.6 million Syrians into the USA this month according to my sources. With no one demanding their identifications, Democrats get 1.6 million votes to win the next election, with the promise of what Obama has wanted all along--passing sharia law.

Congratulations. The women in your family will now need protection from being murdered by their husbands, and women in colleges are fair game for honor killing if they wear yankee clothes.

That didn't happen when we invaded Iraq..and I highly doubt that will happen now.

We'll see.

I'm curious. What are your sources?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That's right. The Supreme Court today invalidated the Arizona Voter Registration Law



Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter registration law | Reuters

What say you?

I think they got it wrong.

They value a silly and damn insignificant claim about Federal Supremacy over the Constitution itself, it appears.

Reuters is wrong? 'Splain, please, for laypersons.

No no.

The SCOTUS got it wrong.

 

[George Costanza]

Everyone needs to stop voting in these morons.

Psst! We don't get to vote for the justices of the Sopreme Court. Just an FYI

Immie

I think she was talking about the administrations who submitted them for Congress and the representatives/senators who passed them in to legislate from the bench when laws are controversial.

Golly - I thought she was talking about the members of the Arizona legislature that passed this law in the first place. We do need to stop voting in those kind of morons.

 

[freedombecki]

That didn't happen when we invaded Iraq..and I highly doubt that will happen now.

We'll see.

I'm curious. What are your sources?

I'm not sure, PratchettFan. I'll have to go back in time 3 or 4 weeks and see if I can find that. This could take some time, so please be patient. 'Kay?

 

[freedombecki]

That didn't happen when we invaded Iraq..and I highly doubt that will happen now.

We'll see.

I'm curious. What are your sources?

The LA Times, June 9, 2013:

"U.S. considers taking in Syrian refugees

A resettlement plan aims to help both the hard-hit Syrian families and the Middle Eastern countries that are straining to support 1.6 million refugees."

We're already considering taking responsibility for millions of financial refugees from Mexico. We're already out of landfill areas here and our water sources are severely taxed, considering all the impure water being found in the water table all over the lower 48. We can't just keep on keeping on taking people other governments decide they don't want and to kill rather than feed them as their least desirable citizens to the kingpin at the top of the food chain in that country. That's just one country, crazed by religious fanatics wanting to get the most crazed over here. Just one. There are 200 countries in the world. A couple of million from each one because some kingpin gets his royal nose out of joint amounts to more than we already have population for here. We can't speak all their languages. It's crazy to invite people over here where there is a tremendous risk they will do the same thing to us that their country did to them. 2,000,000x 200 = 400,000,000 + our present population, which is slightly less than that (unless people from other countries have been surreptitiously flooding the gates unregistered by census counters for at least 7 more years).

 

[PratchettFan]

We'll see.

I'm curious. What are your sources?

I'm not sure, PratchettFan. I'll have to go back in time 3 or 4 weeks and see if I can find that. This could take some time, so please be patient. 'Kay?

Time, I have. I look forward to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

We'll see.

I'm curious. What are your sources?

The LA Times, June 9, 2013:

"U.S. considers taking in Syrian refugees

A resettlement plan aims to help both the hard-hit Syrian families and the Middle Eastern countries that are straining to support 1.6 million refugees."

We're already considering taking responsibility for millions of financial refugees from Mexico. We're already out of landfill areas here and our water sources are severely taxed, considering all the impure water being found in the water table all over the lower 48. We can't just keep on keeping on taking people other governments decide they don't want and to kill rather than feed them as their least desirable citizens to the kingpin at the top of the food chain in that country. That's just one country, crazed by religious fanatics wanting to get the most crazed over here. Just one. There are 200 countries in the world. A couple of million from each one because some kingpin gets his royal nose out of joint amounts to more than we already have population for here. We can't speak all their languages. It's crazy to invite people over here where there is a tremendous risk they will do the same thing to us that their country did to them. 2,000,000x 200 = 400,000,000 + our present population, which is slightly less than that (unless people from other countries have been surreptitiously flooding the gates unregistered by census counters for at least 7 more years).

It says we are considering assisting with the problem, not that we were on the verge of taking all of the refuges. Also, none of these people would be eligible to vote, certainly not until long after the current administration was out of office.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It says we are considering assisting with the problem, not that we were on the verge of taking all of the refuges. Also, none of these people would be eligible to vote, certainly not until long after the current administration was out of office.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Not sure about that. The "Gang of Apes" wants to grant citizenship to every illegal and hand them registration to the DNC as we speak.