Supremes will decide on requiring proof of citizenship to vote

 The U.S. Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.  (AP Photo/Matt York, File)

The U.S. Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)

The Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.

The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Votervoter registration law that doesn’t require such documentation.

This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.

The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.

If Arizona can add citizenship requirements, then “each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in court papers.

A federal appeals court threw out the part of Arizona’s Proposition 200 that added extra citizenship requirements for voter registration, but only after lower federal judges had approved it.

Arizona wants the justices to reinstate its requirement.

Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot, said voter fraud, including by illegal immigrants, continues to be a problem in Arizona.

Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly.

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

___

Billeaud reported from Phoenix.

___

Follow Jesse J. Holland on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland
___

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Responses to "Supremes will decide on requiring proof of citizenship to vote"

  1. Sandy Price  March 17, 2013 at 10:29 am

    This seems to indicate that our last two federal elections were somehow based on fraud. There were many times when as driver for seniors to the polls and returning them home again, my car could have a different set of numbers than the polls showed before the election. I took into the fact that my district voters were basically equally distributed. All I did was furnish the wheels for my district. I worked my grandmother’s district in Santa Monica and when my husband and I bought our home in Encino it was a very different set of numbers. Santa Monica were middleclass voters who often had their own businesses and voted as Republicans. Encino were heavily into manking movies and had higher incomes. The Encino district did not have the turn out. But they may have voted by a mail in ballot.

    Today the GOP csnnot accept the fact that Romney lost and they will go to the extreme to call it a “fraud.”

    When I registered to vote, I h

  2. Jon  March 18, 2013 at 6:28 am

    I’d like to see it go the other way. In order to disenfranchise a voter, the state must prove they are NOT a citizen.

    Furthermore, non-citizens in the USA get taxed just like citizens do, yet they are entirely unrepresented. Taxation without Representation – Recall where that last wound up?

    J.

    • Jon  March 19, 2013 at 2:32 am

      As an aside, the state does have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re a felon, and so “deserve” to have certain other rights taken away (eg. the right to bear arms…)

      J.

Comments are closed.