General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSurprise! Justice Scalia Strikes Down Arizona Law Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Register To Vote
By Ian Millhiser
In an opinion by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, a 7-2 Supreme Court held this morning that an Arizona law requiring voting officials to reject voter registration forms that are not accompanied by concrete evidence of citizenship conflicts with a federal law requiring states to use a uniform voter registration form for federal elections. Scalia once justified an anti-immigrant opinion with a reference to laws excluding freed blacks from southern states, and he called the Voting Rights Act a perpetuation of racial entitlement. So his authorship of this opinion is both unexpected and a sign of the weakness of Arizonas legal position in defending this law.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/17/2166661/surprise-justice-scalia-strikes-down-arizona-law-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-to-register-to-vote/
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Clarence Thomas is even worse.
obama2terms
(563 posts)I emailed him this as soon as I saw it!
red dog 1
(27,913 posts)"Who put that pubic hair on my Coke?"
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)The black racist, who was blind, and hated blacks, in the Chapelle Show skit.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Not that it's a bad decision, mind you, but.........
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Y'know -- at his age, maybe his doctor made him quit. It would explain a lot.
elleng
(131,370 posts)when the Court did so, by a 7-2 decision written by Justice Scalia (and agreed to by others.)
I won't disagree, however, with this: 'So his authorship of this opinion is both unexpected and a sign of the weakness of Arizonas legal position in defending this law.'
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)The decision was based on the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption - in other words, the principle that federal law controls over conflicting or inconsistent state law. It wasn't because Tony is trying to fight for anybody's right to vote. Read it here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
sheshe2
(84,057 posts)marble falls
(57,479 posts)turned into a broken clock?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)marble falls
(57,479 posts)savalez
(3,517 posts)In an effort to counteract a Supreme Court decision Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he intends to file an amendment to immigration reform legislation that allows states to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
He billed his amendment as a response to the 7-2 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, which struck down an Arizona law that required people to prove their citizenship in order to register to vote. The Court held that the state law was in violation of federal law.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/ted-cruz-voter-id-immigration-amendment.php?ref=fpb
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Cha
(298,020 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)opinion, then aren't they setting up problems for the voter ID laws also? Why can't the voter ID laws be challenged as unConstitutional?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I will invite him round for tea.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the actual holding only refers to registering to vote in FEDERAL elections ... so this can result in a two-tier election registration process; one to vote in National elections and a second. more restrictive, process for state/county/munipical level elections.
This ain't good.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)justanaverageguy
(186 posts)did not say that to require an ID in order to register to vote would be unconstitutional per se. He simply said that according to NVRA states do not have the authority to make that a requirement without consent from Congress or whatever relevant agency congress sets up to regulate and decide such matters. However, after reading his opinion it would seem to me that if Congress decided to allow states to require an ID before you can register to vote that it would be just fine by him. No constitutional problem there.
Side note.....Arizona did petition for permission to add an ID to the requirement to register to vote and was denied. Then they amended their constitution.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)I don't care to wallow in the legalese, it's just crazy to not require an ID to register to vote.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Response to ProSense (Original post)
SheilaT This message was self-deleted by its author.