Do You Think It's Possible That The New Voter Suppression Laws Put Forth By The Right Wingers Will All Be Rejected By SCOTUS? Check Out The Article Below & Give Your Input, Thanks In Advance!
|
|
|||||
|
26 votes
|
|
35% | ||
|
23 votes
|
|
31% | ||
|
25 votes
|
|
34% | ||
SCOTUS Rejects Arizona Voter Suppression Law UPDATED
by alaprst
I don't know if anyone has diari about this, but I couldn't help but noticing this
piece about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was easily overshadowed
by the actions on President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act and
Arizona's "Papers Please" law.
Here's what pr watch reported:
In a little-noticed ruling amidst clamor over the healthcare decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, holding it was preempted by the National Voting Registration Act (NVRA). The law was adopted as a "model" bill by the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC] in 2008.
It may not have received the notice "papers please" and the Affordable
Healthcare Act ruling got, but the significance of this ruling cannot be
overstated.
More.
The pr watch piece continues:
Arizona Proposition 200 became law in 2004 and required
election officials to reject voter registration forms that did not
include documentation proving citizenship. Critics said that there was
no evidence that illegal immigrants attempted to vote in state or
federal elections and the real intent of the law was to shut down
community voter registration drives.
I realize this diary is brief, but I hope this ruling is just the
beginning of the end of the GOP's un-American efforts to keep those who
oppose them from voting. I hope this sparks similar actions that assures
that ALL eligible Americans are allowed to vote.
2:33 PM PT: UPDATE: Here's another passage from the pr watch piece:
On June 28, the Supreme Court dealt the ALEC agenda another
blow by declining to stay a ruling by the Ninth Circuit holding that
Arizona's Proposition 200 (the ALEC Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act)
was preempted by the NVRA. The NVRA, also known as the "Motor Voter
Act," was designed to make voter registration more simple and unified.
Arizona’s refusal to accept federal voter registration forms without
proof of citizenship, the Ninth Circuit held, imposed additional
restrictions beyond what was called for under the federal law.
Two weeks ago, Arizona asked Justice Kennedy to stay the
decision,which he did temporarily, but on June 28 the full Court vacated
that temporary order (with Justice Alito dissenting). This means the
Ninth Circuit decision stands, and citizens will be able to register in
Arizona without having to provide additional documentation proving their
citizenship.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/30/1104766/-SCOTUS-Reje...
.
Top Opinion
-
TuringsChild 2012/07/01 05:56:05I Don't agree with SCOTUS ruling in favor of the National Voters Right Act!
+14WHAT voter suppression laws??? You mean the ones that stop dogs, cadavers, and illegal aliens from voting? That's not suppression. That's COMMON SENSE.
http://www.americanprogress.o...
I just went to the DMV to get my new DL and before they would issue me one I had to present my U.S. Passport or birth certificate.
I had no wait in line like I used to when they had to have a Spanish translator available at all times. There was one but he had to speak English.
I have been thinking about taking a trip to Mexico and voting in their presidential election.
There is a bus loading now in Yuma, Arizona.
We took our son to get his DL and had to get, not the hospital BC, but the certified one for the state with the seal on it. I know exactly what you are saying
Wanna bet that, if it were proven that illegals and dead voted republican, that they would be screaming in the streets for clean voter rolls.
Where I live, I do not have to provide my ID to vote. We have a large population of illegal Latinos.
We should have a state voter ID, and it should be required to vote.
I have read the amended portions of the AX Proposition 200 related to voting. Explain to me how asking a person registering to vote to shop proof of being a citizen of the US (a requirement to actually vote). Being a citizen to vote is spelled out in the Constitution. So how can ascertaining said status of a person requesting to vote be wrong?