Supreme Court rules that Arizona can check voter ID... and then that it can't

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, that title sounds weird and contradictory, and it is... but it is also accurate, because that's exactly what the Supreme Court said today.

The Supremes ruled 7-2 today that Arizona's law requiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote (you have to be a citizen), was unconstitutional.

The Opinion (written by Scalia) said:

1.) The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to regulate HOW Federal elections can be run, but not to regulate WHO can vote in them. The latter power, the Supremes said, belongs to the states.

2.) Since the Fed govt did not give states permission to ask for proof of citizenship at elections, when the Fed passed the Motor Voter Act in 1993, the states don't have that power. They must sue the Fed govt in court, and hope the courts grant them that power.

Those two statements can't possible both be true. Yet the Supremes just said they both were.

The Opinion of the Court can be found at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".

The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."

The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.

I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.

In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.

Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.

Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.

And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The Opinion (written by Scalia) said:

1.) The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to regulate HOW Federal elections can be run, but not to regulate WHO can vote in them. The latter power, the Supremes said, belongs to the states.

2.) Since the Fed govt did not give states permission to ask for proof of citizenship at elections, when the Fed passed the Motor Voter Act in 1993, the states don't have that power. They must sue the Fed govt in court, and hope the courts grant them that power.



I wasn't aware it worked that way. I don't think james Madison was either, when he drafted the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, that title sounds weird and contradictory, and it is... but it is also accurate, because that's exactly what the Supreme Court said today.

The Supremes ruled 7-2 today that Arizona's law requiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote (you have to be a citizen), was unconstitutional.

The Opinion (written by Scalia) said:

1.) The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to regulate HOW Federal elections can be run, but not to regulate WHO can vote in them. The latter power, the Supremes said, belongs to the states.

2.) Since the Fed govt did not give states permission to ask for proof of citizenship at elections, when the Fed passed the Motor Voter Act in 1993, the states don't have that power. They must sue the Fed govt in court, and hope the courts grant them that power.

Those two statements can't possible both be true. Yet the Supremes just said they both were.

The Opinion of the Court can be found at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".

The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."

The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.

I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.

In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.

Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.

Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.

And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free. Proof we no longer have a real Supreme Court and that it has somehow been completely corrupted. The Republic has been defeated and nobody knew, right? In essence that is what the sold out bastards just ruled. I just bet that absolutely all encompassing spying on everybody's every form of communication yielded some great blackmail info for Obama to have used on certain key Supreme Court judges. That and money and promises of certain future gifts for relatives of the judges, corruption has to run very deep in that Court. They yet again ruled reversing their own ruling just like its not a tax to hear it but it is a tax to uphold it, sound familiar? THE PEOPLE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY ONE RECOURSE! WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE PLAN..........--Tyr

[logroller]

I wasn't aware it worked that way. I don't think james Madison was either, when he drafted the 10th amendment.
If the feds cant determine voter eligibility, could a state allow noncitizens to register and vote?

[Robert A Whit]

When founded, the public did not vote for president.

I have long advocated for return to the original system.

[Missileman]

When founded, the public did not vote for president.

I have long advocated for return to the original system.

Yeah...I'd much rather have Pelosi, Reid, and Kerry choose who runs the show. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If the feds cant determine voter eligibility, could a state allow noncitizens to register and vote? They just ruled that a state may not set up any restrictions that would insure against that. They ruled a state may not set any safeguards to insure the sanctity and validity of the voting process within it's own borders. Doesn't matter what thinking they used , they ruled insuring the security of a just and truly honest vote is not within a state's rights. They are not only daft but care nothing for justice, voting integrity or the Constitution . Only Alito and Thomas got it right!! Thomas wrote the dissention. And he was spot on too.

[Robert A Whit]

They just ruled that a state may not set up any restrictions that would insure against that. They ruled a state may not set any safeguards to insure the sanctity and validity of the voting process within it's own borders. Doesn't matter what thinking they used , they ruled insuring the security of a just and truly honest vote is not within a state's rights. They are not only daft but care nothing for justice, voting integrity or the Constitution . Only Alito and Thomas got it right!! Thomas wrote the dissention. And he was spot on too.

Bluntly put, this ruling is pro illegal alien and con the rest of us.

States can't prevent any person from voting that wants to vote.

[logroller]

They just ruled that a state may not set up any restrictions that would insure against that. They ruled a state may not set any safeguards to insure the sanctity and validity of the voting process within it's own borders. Doesn't matter what thinking they used , they ruled insuring the security of a just and truly honest vote is not within a state's rights. They are not only daft but care nothing for justice, voting integrity or the Constitution . Only Alito and Thomas got it right!! Thomas wrote the dissention. And he was spot on too.
baloney. They ruled a State cannot act in contravention to US voting Law. Instead of bringing suit against the Fed action that tied their hands, they just did it anyway. I happen to agree with AZ's request to have more solid evidence provided, but when the request floundered, they should have sued the FED government. That's the process; AZ tried to skirt the issue and got called on it. accent mine==>
...a State may request that the EAC alter the Federal Form to include information the State deems necessary to determine eligibility, see §1973gg–7(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 55 (United States), and may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U. S. C. §701–706, no constitutional doubt is raised by giving the "accept and use" provision of the NVRA its fairest reading. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here. In 2005, the EAC divided 2-to-2 on the request by Arizona to include the evidence-of citizenship requirement among the state-specific instructions on the Federal Form, App. 225, which meant that no action could be taken, see 42 U. S. C. §15328 ("Any action
which the Commission is authorized to carry out under this chapter may be carried out only with the approval of at least three of its members"). Arizona did not challenge that agency action (or rather inaction) by seeking APA review in federal court, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 11–12 (Arizona), but we are aware of nothing that prevents Arizona from renewing its request.10 Should the EAC’s inaction persist, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete evidence requirement on the Federal Form. See 5 U. S. C. §706(1). Arizona might also assert (as it has argued here) that it would be arbitrary for the EAC to refuse to include Arizona’s instruction when it has accepted a similar instruction requested by Louisiana.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
So Louisiana managed to get a voter qualification put into effect. But let's say I'm wrong and the feds can't say who and how someone is eligible to vote; that's its purely a state issue-- what's to keep a State from allowing illegals to vote?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

baloney. They ruled a State cannot act in contravention to US voting Law. Instead of bringing suit against the Fed action that tied their hands, they just did it anyway. I happen to agree with AZ's request to have more solid evidence provided, but when the request floundered, they should have sued the FED government. That's the process; AZ tried to skirt the issue and got called on it. accent mine==> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
So Louisiana managed to get a voter qualification put into effect. But let's say I'm wrong and the feds can't say who and how someone is eligible to vote; that's its purely a state issue-- what's to keep a State from allowing illegals to vote? Sure not denying that they in essence ruled that the States must bring action challenging existing Federal law but also in writing for the majority Scalia put forth the proposition that the States must bring suit attacking previous Federal law that has illegally trumped the States's rights. Which was him saying its not the Court's duty to admit on its own and then void previous other Federal laws that are not part of the case being presented at the time. I think he knows States seeking to insure voter integrity is within their rights but the challenge was brought forth in error and the right boat was missed.

[logroller]

Sure not denying that they in essence ruled that the States must bring action challenging existing Federal law but also in writing for the majority Scalia put forth the proposition that the States must bring suit attacking previous Federal law that has illegally trumped the States's rights. Which was him saying its not the Court's duty to admit on its own and then void previous other Federal laws that are not part of the case being presented at the time. I think he knows States seeking to insure voter integrity is within their rights but the challenge was brought forth in error and the right boat was missed.

No doubt; I don't believe the Court should bring challenges upon laws all on their own and without provocation. they have a limited power to rule on what's argued before them and they lean towards finding a Fed law constitutional whenever possible. In this case, it could simply be ruled that there was an issue with the proper process not being pursued/exhausted. On many a controversial ruling, the Court usually instructs what the proper recourse that should/could be pursued. As noted, Louisiana did already.