Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter citizenship law

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,660
27,405
898
Seattle
#1
Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter citizenship law
The Ticket
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 26 mins ago

The Supreme Court has struck down an Arizona law that required voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote.

In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, seven of the Supreme Court justices agreed that the Arizona law oversteps the state's authority by essentially invalidating the federal voter registration form. The form, established by a 1993 law, lets people register to vote by sending in a uniform form accepted by all states. Voters must swear they are citizens on the form, and all states are required to accept the form by law. In a 2004 ballot initiative, Arizona voters decided they wanted to go beyond that requirement, by asking for proof of citizenship--such as a birth certificate, passport, or tribal ID card--at the point of voter registration.

Critics of the law argued that the law stripped some voters of their ability to vote, since some advocacy groups estimate that about 13 million citizens do not have documentary proof of their citizenship. The law's supporters said it would guard against any attempts by non-citizens to vote in federal elections.

The opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's conservatives. Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both part of the court's conservative wing, disagreed with the ruling.

A year ago, the Supreme Court struck down several parts of Arizona's SB1070 law, which sought to give the state broader enforcement powers against unauthorized immigrants. The court argued that the federal government's immigration laws preempted the state's, and that Arizona was interfering with federal power. The court did let a key aspect of the law stand, however, giving local and state police the power to inquire into immigration status during routine stops.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...1lBHB0A3BtaAR0ZXN0A3NjcmVlbl9jb250cm9s;_ylv=3
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#2
Persistent fucking cunts, huh? How many times does the Arizona legislature need to get slapped down before they figure out that they don't have the power to overwrite federal laws?

Or rather, when are the hillbillies who vote for them figure out that these guys are just passing "laws" that have no chance of ever becoming law. And they're tying up federal courts which could be hearing real cases instead, in the process. I mean you might as well just vote for someone who wants to pass a law in Arizona declaring that China is a democracy now. It's gonna be about as effective.
 
Last edited:

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,928
5,336
838
Wilmington, NC
#3
So...much like the requirement to run for POTUS...it's more "honor system" when it comes to proving your citizenship when registering to vote. That's wonderful...we all know how humans are, by nature, completely honest and straightforward about everything...ESPECIALLY when it comes to American politics and the election.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,777
3,171
678
Covington. La
#4
Eh... say fuck it and don't enforce requirements to show an ID for gun purchases.
 

domelogic

Registered User
Feb 16, 2005
11,682
2,918
631
Center Valley, Pa.
#5
Persistent fucking cunts, huh? How many times does the Arizona legislature need to get slapped down before they figure out that they don't have the power to overwrite federal laws?


So dont try and get a law that makes sense on the books? Just because it is a federal law doesnt make it a good law. I mean you know no one would lie about being a citizen now would they. But but but you swore you are a citizen
 

HandPanzer

Vergangenheitsbewältigung
May 30, 2013
46,301
42,043
293
#6
Looking at the court's past ruling regarding Obamacare, which forces everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine, the government now has the ability to compel people to purchase items simply for being a citizen. Using that logic, forcing citizens to purchase identification cards seems perfectly within the current legal boundaries (boundaries, i might add, that are completely unconstitutional, IMHO). Team blue, you simply cannot have it both ways.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,928
5,336
838
Wilmington, NC
#7
So dont try and get a law that makes sense on the books? Just because it is a federal law doesnt make it a good law. I mean you know no one would lie about being a citizen now would they. But but but you swore you are a citizen

Right on.

Actually...federal law is pretty clear on the issue though...but they obviously choose to not enforce it. But it's as clear as day...it is AGAINST THE LAW for a non-US citizen to even ATTEMPT to register to vote in a federal election. So why wouldn't they require everyone to prove that they're a citizen when they go to register to vote? That would be enforcing the requirements. If illegals can vote...why not my 6-year old? Heck, I could just mark his year of birth as 91, instead of 07. What are they gonna do, ask to see ID? Ha! We already know they're not doing that (unless of course I mention who my son and I would be voting for :rolleyes:)

Their reason seems to be along the lines of, "Well, there are alot of people out there who don't have a copy of their birth certificate, passport, tribal ID to prove their citizenship, so they may become disenfranchised and discouraged from pursuing something that is automatically their right as a citizen." So it's a complete honor system...little to no enforcement. Terrific.

Looking at the court's past ruling regarding Obamacare, which forces everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine, the government now has the ability to compel people to purchase items simply for being a citizen. Using that logic, forcing citizens to purchase identification cards seems perfectly within the current legal boundaries (boundaries, i might add, that are completely unconstitutional, IMHO). Team blue, you simply cannot have it both ways.

Exactly. In theory, that sounds wonderful. But then again, ultimately, these people will still be required to produce some sort of proof they're a citizen of this country. The argument now is that they don't have this specific proof available to them...so I guess, our wonderful government would just resort to handing these special citizen ID cards out like candy...without actually enforcing any of the requirements needed to obtain this special citizen ID card.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,558
925
753
With a stranger
#8
How much does a fucking driver's license cost? In NJ it's $24.00. Are there really people bitching that they need to spend $6/year to prove they are who they claim they are in order to vote? The only reason to argue against that law is to make it easier to commit voter fraud and the only way to prevent people from questioning the motives of someone who opposes the law is to brand them a racist. "You can't require me to prove who I am! That's racist! Poor (Insert applicable minority based on geographic location here) can't afford an ID!"
 

HandPanzer

Vergangenheitsbewältigung
May 30, 2013
46,301
42,043
293
#9
How much does a fucking driver's license cost? In NJ it's $24.00. Are there really people bitching that they need to spend $6/year to prove they are who they claim they are in order to vote? The only reason to argue against that law is to make it easier to commit voter fraud and the only way to prevent people from questioning the motives of someone who opposes the law is to brand them a racist. "You can't require me to prove who I am! That's racist! Poor (Insert applicable minority based on geographic location here) can't afford an ID!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1879016.html
From the article:
PennDot is issuing non-license state IDs, as usual, at a cost of $13. But after voting rights groups pointed out that this cost and supporting document costs can be prohibitive, the state and PennDot also agreed to issue what are known as "IDs of last resort." These IDs are technically free of charge, but in many cases also require people to first obtain various supporting documents.
“Even with the free option it is almost as if you have got to know to how speak and use a special coded language,” Freeman said. “If you do not request it just the right way, we have seen DMV staff in some offices say 'okay, that will be $13.'”
Individuals who have never been issued a state identification or driver’s license must provide their birth certificate, marriage license or other documents that they may not have on hand. The cost of obtaining a birth certificate in Pennsylvania can vary, but generally costs about $25, Freeman said.
“As a person who is financially secure, it is true that when you start talking those numbers, $25 is not going to make me flinch, but for persons making $7.25 an hour, that’s tantamount to [nearly] four hours of work. Think about that for a moment.”
 

steve500

Registered User
Oct 20, 2008
4,520
2,099
368
35,000 ft
#10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1879016.htmlFrom the article:PennDot is issuing non-license state IDs, as usual, at a cost of $13. But after voting rights groups pointed out that this cost and supporting document costs can be prohibitive, the state and PennDot also agreed to issue what are known as "IDs of last resort." These IDs are technically free of charge, but in many cases also require people to first obtain various supporting documents.
“Even with the free option it is almost as if you have got to know to how speak and use a special coded language,” Freeman said. “If you do not request it just the right way, we have seen DMV staff in some offices say 'okay, that will be $13.'”
Individuals who have never been issued a state identification or driver’s license must provide their birth certificate, marriage license or other documents that they may not have on hand. The cost of obtaining a birth certificate in Pennsylvania can vary, but generally costs about $25, Freeman said.
“As a person who is financially secure, it is true that when you start talking those numbers, $25 is not going to make me flinch, but for persons making $7.25 an hour, that’s tantamount to [nearly] four hours of work. Think about that for a moment.”

4 hours worth of work? I spend 5 months of the year to pay for gibsmedats, so they should be able so spare what amounts to 20 seconds a day worth of pay to get a copy of a document they lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,859
5,679
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#11
Forget the cost. How exactly does someone manage to do ANYTHING without some sort of ID? OK, so you're poor and can't get a job. How do you register for welfare and unemployment without proving who you are? Fuck, without ID, how does the unemployment office even know you're actually unemployed?
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
10,589
2,570
566
KC Metro
#12
And they're tying up federal courts which could be hearing real cases instead, in the process.

There's no such thing, so you can just stop right there.

An easy 90% of all federal laws are outright unconstitutional.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#13
4 hours worth of work? I spend 5 months of the year to pay for gibsmedats, so they should be able so spare what amounts to 20 seconds a day worth of pay to get a copy of a document they lost.

I see you fell victim to the dreaded phantom post replacement bug.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#14
So dont try and get a law that makes sense on the books? Just because it is a federal law doesnt make it a good law. I mean you know no one would lie about being a citizen now would they. But but but you swore you are a citizen
I agree. Let's start passing laws banning slave labor in North Korea. After all, it makes perfect sense to ban slave labor in North Korea. Let's ignore the fact that a legislature passing a law outside its jurisdiction is wasting time and resources. Let's focus on how much sense it makes to pretend we're getting things done.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#15
How much does a fucking driver's license cost? In NJ it's $24.00. Are there really people bitching that they need to spend $6/year to prove they are who they claim they are in order to vote? The only reason to argue against that law is to make it easier to commit voter fraud and the only way to prevent people from questioning the motives of someone who opposes the law is to brand them a racist. "You can't require me to prove who I am! That's racist! Poor (Insert applicable minority based on geographic location here) can't afford an ID!"
Right. And the only reason to oppose stop and search laws in New York is because we all want to rob liquor stores. And the only reason we would want to limit the NSA's warrants to cases where they can show probable cause is because we all wanna blow up buildings. It couldn't possibly be that we want our government to act in a principled way, and always leave us alone until it has evidence of wrongdoing.

Your argument is a logical fallacy. A person's motives have nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. Stop questioning people's motives. Question whether they're right or wrong in what they're doing. In this case, the people not wanting the US to take another step towards mandatory IDs are right. The reason why we don't have mandatory IDs is the presumption of innocence. The government does not have the right to require innocent people to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to prove their innocence. They don't have the right to ask an innocent person to prove who he is, who he talks to on the phone, what he has in his bag walking down the street. They must leave him alone to freely exercise all his rights, until there is evidence of some wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
This particular case was decided on the merits of a particular technicality in a law. I wouldn't lose my shit over it if I were a big anti-illegal type.
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#17
disenfranchising voters. That is such a good idea. It happens in lots of other lesser countries, why not in America?
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#19
I agree with Don, stop it domelogic.


yeah, that old gag.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,558
925
753
With a stranger
#20
Right. And the only reason to oppose stop and search laws in New York is because we all want to rob liquor stores. And the only reason we would want to limit the NSA's warrants to cases where they can show probable cause is because we all wanna blow up buildings. It couldn't possibly be that we want our government to act in a principled way, and always leave us alone until it has evidence of wrongdoing.

Your argument is a logical fallacy. A person's motives have nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. Stop questioning people's motives. Question whether they're right or wrong in what they're doing. In this case, the people not wanting the US to take another step towards mandatory IDs are right. The reason why we don't have mandatory IDs is the presumption of innocence. The government does not have the right to require innocent people to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to prove their innocence. They don't have the right to ask an innocent person to prove who he is, who he talks to on the phone, what he has in his bag walking down the street. They must leave him alone to freely exercise all his rights, until there is evidence of some wrongdoing.

You need an ID to drive. It's the law in many states to require ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol if you simply "appear" to be under a certain age--and that age isn't always the legal age at which you can purchase those things. You need it to buy cold medicine or get on a plane. Would you agree if someone said requiring a driver's license to drive is unfair or somehow disenfranchises drivers or that it is a prohibitive cost? Showing your ID isn't some huge hassle. Voting is something that can have an impact on millions of people and voter fraud can change the result of an election. So why should we trust someone to fill out a form that allows them to vote without proving who they are? Without an ID, I could register to vote with as many different names as I want and vote as each of those people so shy shouldn't the government try to stop that from happening?
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,859
5,679
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#21
You need an ID to drive. It's the law in many states to require ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol if you simply "appear" to be under a certain age--and that age isn't always the legal age at which you can purchase those things. You need it to buy cold medicine or get on a plane. Would you agree if someone said requiring a driver's license to drive is unfair or somehow disenfranchises drivers or that it is a prohibitive cost? Showing your ID isn't some huge hassle. Voting is something that can have an impact on millions of people and voter fraud can change the result of an election. So why should we trust someone to fill out a form that allows them to vote without proving who they are? Without an ID, I could register to vote with as many different names as I want and vote as each of those people so shy shouldn't the government try to stop that from happening?
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#22
You need an ID to drive. It's the law in many states to require ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol if you simply "appear" to be under a certain age--and that age isn't always the legal age at which you can purchase those things. You need it to buy cold medicine or get on a plane. Would you agree if someone said requiring a driver's license to drive is unfair or somehow disenfranchises drivers or that it is a prohibitive cost? Showing your ID isn't some huge hassle. Voting is something that can have an impact on millions of people and voter fraud can change the result of an election. So why should we trust someone to fill out a form that allows them to vote without proving who they are? Without an ID, I could register to vote with as many different names as I want and vote as each of those people so shy shouldn't the government try to stop that from happening?
This argument turns the history of this country's voting rights on its head. Driving, smoking, drinking are not constitutional rights, so the requirement of an ID for their use/purchase does not violate the constitution. Imposing an ID requirement on voting is essentially a poll tax, which has been used extensively before to disenfranchise voters.