« | »

Court To Rule On ‘Proof Of Citizenship’ To Vote

From the Associated Press:

Must voters have to prove citizenship to register?


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will consider the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.

The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn’t require such documentation.

What kind of crazy mixed up world do we live in when requiring people to produce documentation to prove they are citizens is even a question? And it’s even crazier that our ‘President,’ the enforcer of our laws and chief defender of our Constitution, is adamantly opposed to such an obvious requirement.

Whatever happened to the sanctity of the ballot box? Of one man, one vote? But this is exactly why the Democrats have rammed through ‘Motor Voter’ laws across the land. It is an open invitation to voter fraud — I mean — padding the Democrat vote.

[F]our other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.

The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.

Naturally. After all, why should one have to be a US citizen to vote? They don’t have to be a citizen to get free education, free healthcare, or welfare. It isn’t fair that they can’t vote to expand all of those programs.

If Arizona can add citizenship requirements, then "each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in court papers. "Those requirements could encompass voluminous documentary or informational demands, and could extend to any eligibility criteria beyond citizenship, such as age, residency, mental competence, or felony history."

Sure they could. They could add all kinds of onerous requirements, and the courts wouldn’t do anything to stop them.

By the way, where does Mr. Verrilli stand on gun control laws, which clearly add supplemental requirements for a Constitutionally protected right?

A federal appeals court threw out the part of Arizona’s Proposition 200 that added extra citizenship requirements for voter registration, but only after lower federal judges had approved it.

It’s not an "extra citizenship requirement." It is a citizenship requirement. There couldn’t be any more essential requirement than that.

Arizona wants the justices to reinstate its requirement…

The federal "Motor Voter" law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, allows would-be voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof.

Under Proposition 200 approved in 2004, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form

State officials say more than 90 percent of those Arizonans applying to vote using the federal form will be able to simply write down their driver’s license number, and all naturalized citizens simply will be able to write down their naturalization number without needed additional documents

What a terrible burden!

The main legal question facing the justices is whether the federal law trumps Arizona’s law. A 10-member panel of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco said it did…

So you know it is wrong. The 9th Circuit is always wrong.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, March 18th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Court To Rule On ‘Proof Of Citizenship’ To Vote”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    Everything democrats do is “THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!”

    Everything Republicans do is………challenged in court.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »