SCOTUS declares voter ID citizenship laws unconstitutional

[King]

No thread on this?  A major GOP talking point has just died.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ariz-citizenship-proof-law-illegal-143112344.html

[quote]
States can't demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision complicating efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in the country illegally.

The justices' 7-2 ruling closes the door on states independently changing the requirements for those using the voter-registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. They would need permission from a federally created panel, the Election Assistance Commission, or a federal court ruling overturning the commission's decision, to make tougher requirements stick.

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

[Paul Kemp]

The damn librul court re-writing the constitution!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Now give us the main 4 already!

[greenforest32]

Just in case anyone is confused, this ruling didn't strike down voter ID laws when people are voting at the polls, it struck down states requiring proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration application (something that isn't required currently).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/us-usa-court-voters-idUSBRE95G0K720130617

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[illegaloperation]

Not surprise that the SCOTUS would rule this way otherwise Arizona would probably add drug-testing as the next requirement for voting.

[jaichind]

Just in case anyone is confused, this ruling didn't strike down voter ID laws when people are voting at the polls, it struck down states requiring proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration application (something that isn't required currently).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/us-usa-court-voters-idUSBRE95G0K720130617

Understood.  I guess I disagree with this decision.  My wife was just naturalized last year as a USA citizen just in time for the 2012 election and I worked to register her.  I filled out the form and in it it does not even ask for any proof of citizenship.  So I could have just made stuff up and it would have worked or more likely registered her back in 2008 in retrospect and it would have worked.  Also, it turned out I misspelled her name on this application and the voter ID card had her name incorrect so I called the Westercher/Scarsdale voter registration office and they changed it for me without any real verification of who I am or if I was making this stuff up.  The current system is just full of holes.  Just my personal opinion.  

[Torie]

The article is extremely poorly written as to the legal issue in play, and thus King's erroneous headline. It was a decision based on the AZ law violating a federal statute, the motor voter law, not the US Constitution. Thus its sweep is much more limited. At least that is my impression from reading another article, which I don't have time to link now.

[Brittain33]

Scalia wrote the opinion, which tells you what you need to know about how sweeping it is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah it's very narrow opinion pertaining to process mainly.  Scalia was careful to point out the method under Federal law for it to get the Motor Voter form to include what it deems the necessary information for it to be able to determine citizenship.  All that was rejected here was Arizona being able to say the form doesn't meet our needs and rather than get it to do that, we'll just add some additional requirements beyond filling out the form.