Surprise! Justice Scalia Strikes Down Arizona Law Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Register To Vote

[ProSense]

Surprise! 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 Arizona’s 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]

1. It seems that those who think Clarence Thomas is a Scalia clone are wrong.

Clarence Thomas is even worse.

[obama2terms]

12. My dad is one of those

I emailed him this as soon as I saw it!

[red dog 1]

15. Proof that Clarence Thomas is worse than Fat Tony

"Who put that pubic hair on my Coke?"

[liberalmike27]

21. He's Like

The black racist, who was blind, and hated blacks, in the Chapelle Show skit.

[Berlum]

17. Clarence T. (R)

[blkmusclmachine]

23. Double stuff'd.

[kestrel91316]

2. Has he started smoking crack?

Not that it's a bad decision, mind you, but.........

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. Maybe he gave up crack.

Y'know -- at his age, maybe his doctor made him quit. It would explain a lot.

[elleng]

3. Its incorrect to say by headline 'Justice Scalia strikes down,'

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 Arizona’s legal position in defending this law.'

[onehandle]

4. Votin' while brown lives to see another day. nt

[Thinkingabout]

5. This is a great decision, we need voters, we need to encourage voters to vote

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Don't start thinking Fat Tony has gone all liberal.

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]

8. K&R! nt

[marble falls]

9. Scalia,huh? did anybody read the fine print, the back of the opinion or between the lines? Has he ..

turned into a broken clock?

[struggle4progress]

11. I hear his opinion lays out a strategy by which states might succeed with such laws

[marble falls]

18. The devil is always in the details.

[savalez]

10. And then we have this:

Ted Cruz Plans Immigration Amendment To Reverse Supreme Court Ruling On Voter Registration

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]

13. That sound you hear is teabaggers' heads exposing en masse. nt

[Cha]

14. Thank you, ProSense

[John2]

16. If this is the Supreme Court's

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]

19. What a nice man.

I will invite him round for tea.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Although I support the outcome ...

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]

22. Stopped watch and all...

[xtraxritical]

24. So what form of ID is required to register to vote? Do we then allow noncitizens to vote?

[justanaverageguy]

25. It is important to note that his written opinion

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]

27. I'm a Senior citizen and decades ago I had to show ID to register to vote.

I don't care to wallow in the legalese, it's just crazy to not require an ID to register to vote.

[xtraxritical]

28. Ok, it takes me awhile but I get your and Scalias point, registration must be uniform. Thanks