Just when the Supreme Court was becoming way too predictable, Justice Scalia wrote the 7-2 majority opinion striking down Arizona’s version of a voter suppression law. Less surprising were the dissenting votes by Thomas and Alito.
The law in question created additional obstacles to voting registration for eligible voters who are also “naturalized” Citizens.
As summarized by Pete Williams: “Citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal registration form requires people to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. States can use their own forms, but they must be equivalent to the federal form.” (my emphasis)
Arizona’s voter registration form included a requirement to prove citizenship. Since naturalized citizens would have to present their naturalization documents, it means they would not be able to register on line or by mail – unlike natural born citizens. Since federal law prohibits photocopying of naturalization documents, this requirement means that Naturalized citizens would have to register in person. Therefore, the law creates an obstacle especially created for naturalized citizens.
Alabama, Georgia and Kansas, which have similar laws, joined Arizona in its defense of a law that clearly discriminates against Americans who became citizens as a matter of choice, rather than a result of birth.
Writing for the majority on ARIZONA v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZ. INC Justice Scalia said:
We hold that 42 U. S. C. §1973gg-4 precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act.
As noted by a resident of Arizona on the Scotus Blog, this ruling is a big deal.
As someone who is from Arizona, I want to make clear how big this decision is. Has completely controlled politics there (sic) for the past 2 years. Big decision for a state quickly approaching swing-state status.
And there we have the motive behind the law. As is the case with other voter suppression laws, this law was a hail Mary pass by Republicans who won’t change with the times and recognize they don’t have a snowball’s chance on any planet of winning future elections unless they rig the system.
Without question, this ruling is a solid victory for voting rights. Not only because it struck down a law obviously intended to restrict voting by certain American citizens, but also because it was a 7-2 ruling – a relatively rare occurrence in today’s Supreme Court.
The ruling did leave a narrow opening for voter suppressors in Arizona, at least in theory. They can seek approval from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and seek judicial review if the EAC’s decision isn’t to the state’s liking.
For now, Arizona will have to accept a ruling that rejects skim milk voting rights for naturalized citizens. We’ll have to see how the Supreme Court rules on section five of the Voting Rights Act case, a ruling which will be coming down within the next couple of weeks.
Image NBC Latino




Churchlady320
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
I have been arguing for some time that we ought not to wax hysterical over SCOTUS. Warren was the architect of the Japanese American internment. Hugo Black had been in the KKK. Two of our most liberal and progressive judges started out with highly questionable credentials.
Sometimes the majesty of the Constitution and the law simply cannot be denied by any but the greatest of dolts (witness the two dissenters). When even Scalia agrees with principles of fairness and equity, something seismic has occurred.
loading...
djchefron
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Hmm..Arizona’s population is 30% Hispanic, the fourth largest Hispanic population share nationally.
There are 824,000 Hispanic eligible voters in Arizona—the fifth largest Hispanic eligible voter population nationally. California ranks first with 5.9million.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/10/01/latinos-in-the-2012-election-arizona/
With Gov. Brewer implementing the ACA and now this ruling.Things can get very interesting starting in 2014
loading...
mjh
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
With Gov. Brewer implementing the ACA and now this ruling.Things can get very interesting starting in 2014
Poor Jan — all her finger-wagging at President Obama couldn’t stop the voter ID law, she’s implementing ACA, and Sheriff Joe couldn’t dig up anything on the President after numerous attempts.
She may get “primaried” . . .
.
loading...
djchefron
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
She cant run again.Its against their Constitution.Now the repubs was trying to change it so she could run but after her come to Obama moment I am not hearing that talk anymore.Snicker
loading...
PSzymeczek
Jun. 18th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Jan tried to say that her first term didn’t count because she took over when Janet Napolitano was tapped for Secretary of Homeland Security and wasn’t elected.
Now someone downtown (I live in the Phoenix metro area) is making noise about appealing the decision in this latest case. To what court could you possibly appeal a SCOTUS decision?
loading...
TRoN33
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
2014 is going to be the year of awakening for the Republicans because they will not win most of the elections.
loading...
gsb
Jun. 18th, 2013 at 8:46 pm
TRoN33 now wouldn’t that be a big blessing? Repukes seem to be messing in their own bed.
loading...
Paws
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Trying to prevent people from voting when they have the legal right to do so, is absolutely insidious.
No one should be disenfranchised and laws that would make it harder for people to vote are doing just that. It has nothing to do with preventing “voter fraud” – it’s to keep certain segments of the population from exercising their right to vote.
The fright wing will realize one day that their actions in this regard helped lead directly to their demise. Given that they are not big on self-reflection, I don’t expect them to learn that lesson until it is far too late for them to do anything about it.
loading...
mjh
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
The Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona’s Discriminatory Voter ID Law
Countdown until the rightwingnuts freak out about Scalia being a “liberal-leaning activist judge” and call for his impeachment: 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .
.
loading...
ARWKoppen
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
It’s a start of equal-laws.
loading...
TYBANDIT
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Justice Thomas dissented. The man is a disgrace.
loading...
Sophie13
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
The Court did NOT strike down Arizona’s Voter ID law. It struck down the law that required proof of citizenship TO REGISTER TO VOTE. In fact, the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona had challenged Arizona’s Voter ID law and lost in the Ninth Circuit. It did not even ask the Court to determine whether Arizona’s law requiring photo identification before individuals are allowed to vote is constitutional.
The issue in this case was whether the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 a/k/a The Motor Voter Act preempted Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship before one may register to vote. It does. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Federal law trumps state law.
BUT – and this is important: As its name implies, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 only regulates voter REGISTRATION… NOT VOTING.
There is NO Federal law that preempts voter ID laws; thus Federal law CANNOT preempt state laws requiring proper identification before individuals are…
loading...
djchefron
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Correct me if I am wrong.So to have a valid ID I take it to mean a state issue ID that you have to have a valid birth certificate,passport etc .So since you have to have these things regardless if you a citizen or resident alien what are you going to stamp on the state issue ID?I am a citizen? A American flag?
loading...
Sophie13
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
States have different rules for obtaining drivers’ licences. Some require a birth certificate or other form of government-issued identification. In states where immigrants – legal or illegal – are issued drivers’ licences, most do mark them in a way that distinguishes them from those issued to citizens. Some have a striped bar across the top.
If you want a better understanding of today’s ruling, I’ve written a post on it and I include what others are saying. For those that have read the entire decision, it is clear that the Court distinguished between registering to vote and actually voting.
Understanding Arizona v Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona http://tinyurl.com/kh88tqk
:-)
loading...
djchefron
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Thanks I will check it out.I want to ask you something about the inter Tribal Council.Is it an Native American organization?Living in Oklahoma I know they have their own government affairs and such but being American Citizens do they have to have special ID because they are Native Americans?If thats the case all I could do is shake my head.
I know I should be aware but forgive me for my ignorance
loading...
Sophie13
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 11:12 pm
djchefron: I don’t anything about the Inter-Tribal group. From the name, I would assume that it is an organisation representing several tribes.
I don’t know for what reasons they challenged the law, but the purpose of Proposition 200, which passed in 2004…when Janet Napolitano, (D), was Gov of Arizona, was intended to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and to reduce voter fraud whereby a person votes more than once or votes in the name of someone else.
I am a naturalised American and I really don’t understand why people are so irate about being asked to prove that they are who they say they are & that they are citizens before being allowed to vote. I never attempted to vote before I became a citz. Not only was such a crime, it would also have been unfair to Americans.
Anyhoo, I hope my link helps you to understand the decision better and never apologise for your ignorance. The only people that should apologise for ignorance are those that refuse to educate…
loading...
TYBANDIT
Jun. 18th, 2013 at 2:36 am
The problem isn’t that you have to show ID to vote, the problem is with the barriers that many states have put up just TO GET THE ID! Many poor and minority people, for whatever reason, don’t have the documentation to get whatever ID a particular state requires, and the states keep changing the rules. May I suggest some historical background, being a naturalized citizen, you may not know the entire story from a historical perspective. Start with this:http://www.pbs.org/pov/barber/photo_gallery_background.php?photo=6#.Ub_-xowo6dI
loading...
majii
Jun. 17th, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Rubio has already tried to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling by adding an amendment to the immigration reform bill which is intended to override the Supreme Court’s decision. TPM reported earlier today that Rubio added the amendment shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its’ decision in the case.
“Despicable Me” isn’t only the title of a kids’ movie. Rubio’s move after hearing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case makes him a contemptible person, intent on depriving some of our legal citizens of their right to vote. The TPM article also noted that Rubio’s bill denies all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. a path to citizenship. I guess we’ll have a large population of people in the U.S. who will remain in limbo, if Rubio has his way.
loading...
labman57
Jun. 18th, 2013 at 12:00 am
The (publicly stated) rationale for all of the restrictive voter ID laws emanating from Republican-controlled state legislatures — “voter fraud”.
There is a world of difference between voting fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by the voter at the precincts on election day) and voter registration fraud. There is very little evidence for the former in the U.S. (other than that being perpetrated by O’Keefe’s not-ready-for-prime-time players), yet conservatives are hell bent on enacting legislation to combat it, suggesting an ulterior motive is at play.
Mailing out voter registration forms to non-eligible or nonexistent individuals is not, in of itself, election fraud. Completing and submitting said forms is a form of election fraud, but these acts would not affect an election unless the regional election authorities validated the registrations and then somebody actually attempted to vote using this fake registration.
loading...