Page 2 of 2 Previous

Continued: Supreme Court says Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship for federal voter registration

  • Article by: JESSE J. HOLLAND , Associated Press
  • Last update: June 17, 2013 - 10:24 PM

Tom Caso, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in California and supporter of the Arizona law, said the decision "opened the door" to noncitizen voting.

"The court's decision ignores the clear dictates of the Constitution in favor of bureaucratic red tape," Caso said. "The notion that the court will not enforce the Constitution unless you first apply to a commission that cannot act because it has no members is mind-boggling."

Currently, the Election Assistance Commission has no active commissioners. The four commissioners are supposed to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The last two left in 2011, according to the panel's website.

Kathy McKee, who led the push to get Proposition 200 on the ballot in Arizona, said the ruling makes it harder to combat voter fraud, including fraud carried out by people who don't have permission to be in the country. "To even suggest that the honor system works, really?" McKee said. "You have to prove who you are just to use your charge card now."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only two dissenters. Alito said the decision means that Arizona now has two voter registration systems, and that the success of an applicant could come simply by the system he or she chooses. "I find it very hard to believe that this is what Congress had in mind," he said.

Opponents of Arizona's law saw it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they've counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked by the state law in the 20 months after it passed. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to people in the country illegally and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and challenge any adverse decision by the government in court. Louisiana's request already has been granted, Scalia said.

The ruling upholds one by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the 1993 National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona's Proposition 200.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

  • related content

  • Graphic: INTERACTIVE: Supreme Court opinions

    Monday June 17, 2013

    An interactive on the Supreme Court's 2012-2013 session with the latest rulings and details about...

  • High court says driver records protected

    Monday June 17, 2013

    The Supreme Court says lawyers may not obtain personal information from state driver license records to recruit clients for lawsuits.

  • Court says pre-Miranda silence can be used

    Monday June 17, 2013

    The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.

  • Court: 'Pay to delay' generic drugs can be illegal

    Monday June 17, 2013

    Deals between pharmaceutical corporations and their generic drug competitors, which government officials say keep cheaper forms of medicine off the market, can sometimes be illegal and therefore can be challenged...

  • Court says jury should have final say in minimums

    Monday June 17, 2013

    The Supreme Court says a jury should have the final say on facts that can trigger mandatory minimum sentences in criminal trials.

  • High court to hear NJ housing discrimination case

    Monday June 17, 2013

    The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take on another dispute involving race, deciding whether people must prove they were victims of intentional housing discrimination to win lawsuits under federal law.

  • People wait outside the Supreme Court in anticipation of key decisions...

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

 
Close