Quantcast

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that states cannot require voters to prove they are citizens?

Fox Report with Shepard Smith 2013/06/17 17:40:49
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.



The justices voted 7-2 to throw out 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.

Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself," Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court's majority.

Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/supreme...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Dustin 2013/06/17 18:41:30
    No
    Dustin
    +47
    Problem with criminal activity is not who you catch but who you don't catch. Democrats go well we only caught this small amount of fraud. Problem is like if you look at the one poll lady she went years and years doing her routine. Was only caught because of a technicality.

    A id is not a extreme expectation all the things listed below are things you need a id for and I am sure pretty much no one can live without these things except .00000001 of population that lives in a cave eating cave moss.

    1. Boarding an airplane
    2. Writing a check
    3. Cashing a check
    4. Using a credit card
    5. Driving a motor vehicle
    6. Applying for a business license
    7. Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
    8. Securing employment
    9. Purchasing a house or real estate
    10. Renting a domicile
    11. Renting a motor vehicle
    12. Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
    13. Applying for a hunting license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
    14. Applying for a fishing license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
    15. Purchasing alcoholic beverages
    16. Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
    17. Purchasing a motor vehicle
    18. Initial registration of a motor vehicle
    19. Applying for a building permit
    20. Recei...






    Problem with criminal activity is not who you catch but who you don't catch. Democrats go well we only caught this small amount of fraud. Problem is like if you look at the one poll lady she went years and years doing her routine. Was only caught because of a technicality.

    A id is not a extreme expectation all the things listed below are things you need a id for and I am sure pretty much no one can live without these things except .00000001 of population that lives in a cave eating cave moss.

    1. Boarding an airplane
    2. Writing a check
    3. Cashing a check
    4. Using a credit card
    5. Driving a motor vehicle
    6. Applying for a business license
    7. Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
    8. Securing employment
    9. Purchasing a house or real estate
    10. Renting a domicile
    11. Renting a motor vehicle
    12. Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
    13. Applying for a hunting license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
    14. Applying for a fishing license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
    15. Purchasing alcoholic beverages
    16. Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
    17. Purchasing a motor vehicle
    18. Initial registration of a motor vehicle
    19. Applying for a building permit
    20. Receiving prescription medicine
    21. Purchasing OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine
    22. Serving on jury duty
    23. Getting a bank account
    24. Cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater
    25. Sales tax exemption for people aged 80 and above

    This for democrats is not about making every vote count but every fraudulent vote count. When talking about voter fraud they say well only 50 cases were prosecuted. But fail to mention 160 county's had more registered voters than people living there(extremely odd when voter registration is under 50%) Or the near a million people registered that had been dead for years. Or the cases of The Florida New Majority Education Fund, Democratic Party of Florida and the National Council of La Raz who are under investigation for voter fraud. Or how about the 2.75 million people registered to vote in multiple states.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Tordgaard 2013/07/11 11:19:01
    No
    Tordgaard
    No, I do not.
  • hippy 2013/06/27 18:26:36
    Yes
    hippy
    Seems pretty plain to me.
  • Cap 2013/06/23 18:59:24
    Yes
    Cap
    My answer is misleading.

    I agree with the Supreme Court that Congress has the power to do what it did, in terms of setting down rules for participating in federal elections. I don't think it has to be that way, but I think that is the best reading of the principles contained in the Constitution - certainly since the enactment of the 14th Amendment, and most certainly at all times relevant to this proceeding.

    On the other hand I agree with the thinking implicit in the State of Arizona's position that Congress was unwise in doing what it did in enacting the Motor Voter Law. Motor Voter incorporates a value judgment that the best way to get people to appreciate their right to vote is to expend government resources to induce them to use their right. I find the argument that making things too easy for people encourages disrespect of the activity which you are seeking to have them value; I don't advocate setting up mine fields around places where people vote and register, but I am not the least put off by procedures which require that those wishing to vote display a minimal amount of initiative. The Supreme Court's role in this case, as in most cases where a State is accused of violating a Congressional enactment, is to opine on Congress's power, not Congress's wisdom.
  • Mopeder 2013/06/21 18:29:29
    No
    Mopeder
    If you're not a citizen you should not be allowed to vote.
  • D S 2013/06/21 16:53:43
    Yes
    D S
    +1
    I enjoy how concerned AZ is when it comes to identification and yet their ID cards don't expire for 40 years. How many 60 year olds under a desert sun look the same as when they were 20?
  • Buzz 2013/06/21 16:34:31
    No
    Buzz
    +1
    This is treasonous. The fact that someone can enter this country illegally then vote for a pandering candidate completely undermines our way of government. The right to vote is a precious right and after having served in the armed forces for over 20 years to protect our way of life the thought that someone in this country illegally can cancel out my vote is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
  • askmike Buzz 2013/06/22 00:20:14
    askmike
    +1
    Wow. You claim that upholding the United States Constitution is treasonous? Article VI, Clause 2 is part of the Constitution. It declares that federal law shall apply in every state of the union and if states enact laws that contradict federal laws, those state laws shall be unconstitutional. Federal law already sets the standards for voting in the USA. Arizona cannot change those standards.
  • Prophet askmike 2013/06/22 09:47:49
    Prophet
    So where is this federal law which says you do not have to show ID to prove you are a citizen? Federal law requires you to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to vote. The states have every right to ask you to prove it. Today though it looks as if the feds like to make up new rules as they go along with this game.
  • askmike Prophet 2013/06/22 14:37:02
    askmike
    +1
    Ron Reagan promoted a federal system of making voter registration easier. Congress talked it over, liked it, and in 1993, Bill Clinton signed the resulting Motor Voter law. That is a uniform federal form to register to vote, and every state has used that form since it became law. Try to keep up.
  • Zippcodey 2013/06/21 16:22:21
    No
    Zippcodey
    Our Supreme Court has been taken over, there are 6 Catholics and 3 Jews, this country is being run by Jesuits and Secret Societies for the Vatican and Pope. You will see a lot of Court rulings that will go against what kept this country free. They will legalize homosexual marriage too.
  • D S Zippcodey 2013/06/21 16:33:37
    D S
    +3
    Yeah cause if there are two groups clammering to get gay marriage legalized its the catholics and the jews.
  • Zippcodey D S 2013/06/21 16:39:05
    Zippcodey
    You don't have a clue to what is going on.
  • Prophet 2013/06/21 16:17:08
    No
    Prophet
    +1
    This does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  • askmike Prophet 2013/06/22 00:21:36
    askmike
    Sorry. Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution says you are incorrect.
  • Prophet askmike 2013/06/22 09:37:19
    Prophet
    Here is 4/2 Clause Two requires that fugitives from justice may be extradited on the demand of executive authority of the state from which they flee. The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the fugitive to have fled after an indictment was issued, but only that the fugitive fled after having committed the crime. The Constitution provides for the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime." That phrase incorporates all acts prohibited by the laws of a state, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
  • askmike Prophet 2013/06/22 14:42:44
    askmike
    OK. I bite. I failed to read anything remotely associated with the Arizona law the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional. Article VI, Clause 2 is referred to as the Supremacy Clause as it states that if there is a federal law existing, states may not enact legislation the contradicts that law. The federal Motor Voter Law was passed by Congress in 1993 and it made a uniform federal procedure for registering to vote. Arizona cannot enact a law that conflicts with the existing federal law.
  • Prophet askmike 2013/06/22 21:51:24
    Prophet
    Let me draw your attention to the summary. In fact the first P says it all "when a qualifying voter.' Now I would guess and only guess that this would mean an American Citizen.http://en.wikipedia.o...
  • askmike Prophet 2013/06/22 22:36:50
    askmike
    Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision that states cannot require voters to prove they are citizens. That is the topic of the host. Try to keep up.
  • Prophet askmike 2013/06/23 06:54:20
    Prophet
    NO
  • Barrie Boy 2013/06/21 15:44:35
    No
    Barrie Boy
    Here in Canada we have to provide photo ID and prove you live in that district.
    Why are so many people (I understand mostly democrats) against having a fair electoral group. They complain way too much. It gives the impression they have a lot to lose if proper ID is required at a polling booth. Your Supreme Court made a grave error with that decision.
  • betz 2013/06/21 10:30:11
    No
    betz
    +1
    I completely disagree with this ruling. Even if there are only a handful of people voting illegally that is a handful too many. It's a shame.
  • LockiNinja 2013/06/21 07:20:10
    No
    LockiNinja
    +1
    Can't decide the country's president if you're not a legal citizen.
  • Cyan 2013/06/21 04:46:49
    No
    Cyan
    +1
    No I do not agree. Registration is very easy, perhaps too easy with that stupid motor voter law which only works to ensure that illegals get to register and vote because they can so easily get DL's. Even though the Patriot Act got expanded by the Dems with Biden and BO in the Senate and e-verify is now required in every state to obtain SS #, which are apparently easy for illegals to get.
  • Deborah McGrath 2013/06/21 03:49:26
    No
    Deborah McGrath
    I am liberal. The most liberal countries in Europe (Scandinavia and Switzerland) have
    protectionist immigration policies the Netherlands is very multi lingual but insists that its
    government be run in Dutch German and you can't reside in Germany without your
    abilty to speak the language being called into question. The Constitution is a living
    document and our laws and system are meant to be flexible to suit historical poltical
    economic etc. changes and meet the present needs of the nation within the construct
    of certain non negotiable principles and concepts that are the ideological and structural
    foundation of the country. In the past poll taxes and literacy tests were used as a manipulative ploy to deny black Americans their right to vote. In this circumstance the courts had to ban litmus requirements which were designed to exclude a class of citizens
    from participating in the political process. We now have millions of people here illegally
    and a well organized politically powerful lobby to organize and harness for demographic
    control the Latino vote. These guys remind me of the NRA who never say no that's not
    wise public policy to anything that will benefit any Latino regardless of the legal political
    economic or societal implications (we're talking about a lot of people th...



    I am liberal. The most liberal countries in Europe (Scandinavia and Switzerland) have
    protectionist immigration policies the Netherlands is very multi lingual but insists that its
    government be run in Dutch German and you can't reside in Germany without your
    abilty to speak the language being called into question. The Constitution is a living
    document and our laws and system are meant to be flexible to suit historical poltical
    economic etc. changes and meet the present needs of the nation within the construct
    of certain non negotiable principles and concepts that are the ideological and structural
    foundation of the country. In the past poll taxes and literacy tests were used as a manipulative ploy to deny black Americans their right to vote. In this circumstance the courts had to ban litmus requirements which were designed to exclude a class of citizens
    from participating in the political process. We now have millions of people here illegally
    and a well organized politically powerful lobby to organize and harness for demographic
    control the Latino vote. These guys remind me of the NRA who never say no that's not
    wise public policy to anything that will benefit any Latino regardless of the legal political
    economic or societal implications (we're talking about a lot of people this isn't just
    ideological it has real impact on this country) in the same way the NRA supports assault
    weapons and opposes waiting periods background checks and every other proposed
    measure to increase gun safety. In light of current circumstances making sure everyone
    who votes is a citizen is a reasonable and prudent thing to do.It would be foolish not to.
    (more)
  • FairLady 2013/06/21 02:24:20
    No
    FairLady
    This is total absurd.. The citizenship proof has always been required for voting, the entire US history. What the Supreme Court was thinking??? This is a very idiotic decision of the Court. I can't believe they made that stupid decision.
  • Oly*Nicole 2013/06/21 01:59:39
  • unclepat 2013/06/20 22:54:22
    Yes
    unclepat
    +1
    These guys are starting to rule with some sense I see. Won't belong before the reps from teabagger nation start using the dreaded L word to describe them! lol
  • BILL 2013/06/20 22:51:10
  • ronbo 2013/06/20 21:25:58
    No
    ronbo
    +1
    I have to show ID to buy a beer or cash a check. Why is it such a big deal to show ID before voting?
  • Buzz ronbo 2013/06/21 16:37:00
    Buzz
    Because if only legal voters vote the Republicans will win.
  • TexasMentor54 2013/06/20 21:02:55
    Yes
    TexasMentor54
    Questions of citizenship are the purview of the Federal government, NOT the states, just as the ruling indicates. There cannot be 50 different standards, one for each state. The Court was right on the money, for a change.
  • richard shelton 2013/06/20 20:21:20
    Yes
    richard shelton
    I'd have to agree with the Court on this one - if the ruling is kept narrow in scope. The States do have a right to require Identification in other points of the process. Filling out a federal form, is the Fed's business. Entering a polling place is the states. Bring an ID there, cause that meaningless paper ain't worth squat.
  • LeroyRogers 2013/06/20 17:57:50
    No
    LeroyRogers
    +1
    here comes some more democrat voters

    illegal aliens
  • urwutuis 2013/06/20 15:16:06
    Yes
    urwutuis
    +1
    The push for voter ID is just a push for govt tracking and adding restrictions to federal forms is ridiculous.
    For people who supposedly want less govt conservatives continually give them more power to expand.
  • RubenRi... urwutuis 2013/06/20 20:28:38
    RubenRibnik
    +1
    what???
  • V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2013/06/20 15:05:15
    Yes
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Yes, but ONLY within the narrow scope of the actual ruling. Although states cannot add their own requirements to a federal program, I don't see what prevents them from having their own requirements for state-administered programs.

    In this case, the feds have the "Motor Voter" program. I believe the prerequisite is a state-issued driver's license. I don't see anything stopping the states from verifying citizenship when a driver's license is issued, displaying citizenship status on the license itself, or requiring photo ID to vote.

    If citizenship is required to get a driver's license, the "Motor Voter" program should not have to re-verify something that was already checked when the driver's license was issued. If we stop issuing driver's licenses to illegals, the problem should solve itself.
  • urwutuis V~POTL~... 2013/06/20 23:34:19
    urwutuis
    Not all eligible voters have drivers licenses but when you come down to it if voting actually changed anything they wouldn't let us do it. It's the illusion of freedom
  • V~POTL~... urwutuis 2013/06/21 01:09:23
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    True, not all eligible voters have a driver's license. But every state offers a photo ID that serves as an alternative form of ID for non-drivers. Documentation requirements are about the same.

    If voting didn't matter, there would not be so many people trying to game the system. INDIVIDUAL votes don't make much difference, but collectively it matters. I just wish we could vote for candidates who have not been bought off by special interests.
  • urwutuis V~POTL~... 2013/06/21 19:01:07
    urwutuis
    The system is already gamed. Anyone with the ability and desire to change things stands a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa than seeing their name on the ballot and anyone with enough character to actually lead wouldn't be able to tolerate the glad handing, back slapping and vote begging required to be elected.
  • V~POTL~... urwutuis 2013/06/21 19:08:31
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    I tend to agree, at least as far as the two major parties are concerned. The last competent Republican was Reagan, the last competent Democrat was JFK. A lousy nomination process has produced lousy candidates ever since -- at least at the state & federal level. Campaign finance reform would help, but voters are too stupid to vote for it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/23 07:29:02

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals