Did SCOTUS rule correctly in this case?

[dan_bgblue]

I think they did. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-citizenship-proof-law-illegal/)

I think the ruling points out the that the federal law needs to be amended.

[jazyd]

The federal law is a bad one and needs to be changed as you point out. A state should not be required to allow a person to vote if that person cannot prove they have the right to vote. This is all about electing more liberals to congress and then screwing those that pay for that right.

[CitizenBBN]

I need to read the full dissent by Justice Thomas, but I have a feeling I'm going to decide with him that the Motor Voter act itself is unenforceable Constitutionally if part of its correct enforcement is precluding something like a state requiring proof of citizenship, that requirement not being in violation of the 15th or the other voting relevant sections of the Constitution.

If we accept Motor Voter is Constitutional if it by act of Congress without Constitutional Amendment can in effect force a state to not check basic citizenship for voting, we've gutted the Constitutional principle of states choosing how to conduct their elections. By extension Congress could pass a law tomorrow that simply and explicitly says no state can check citizenship or even identification for voting and the ideological basis of the majority here would suggest it would be legal and Constitutional. Likewise a conservative congress could get in power and do the opposite, requiring identification for every voter.

What's left of the federalism of elections if that is the case? A poll tax for example is illegal b/c it is unconstitutional, an end run around the 15th Amendment as it has been held, but all the Court has said here is Arizona law tried to supersede a regular Congressional law by exercising their Constitutional power to run their own elections. Had they violated the Constitution fine, but this decision says Congress can override powers granted to the States by the Constitution without having to obtain a Constitutional Amendment.

I need to read both decisions as I said, but at first glance if we accept the premise that Arizona's action contradicted or attempted to alter Motor Voter, and Motor Voter by its construction prevented a state from obtaining valid identification to insure there is no voter fraud, then the correct decision is to reluctantly strike down Motor voter b/c what we've set up is a question of which prevails, a Constitutionally granted power of federalism or a Congressionally enacted law. If that is the choice, and if we accept the Court's facts of the case that's what it seems to be saying, then the law must be unconstitutional.

Personally I can't believe we're having a debate about whether people who aren't citizens should be able to vote, or should be granted citizenship ahead of tens of millions of others in the world who would love to be US citizens simply bc they weren't born close enough to violate US laws and sneak into the country and live the rest of their time in violation of those laws. I suppose historically we've long had an "if you can get here you can stay otherwise tough" policy, but showing up in New York Harbor you went to Ellis Island for processing, you weren't breaking US law to show up and knock on the door. This is a "if you can show up and break in through the unlocked window then you can stay otherwise if you're dumb enough to knock on the door you're going back home" policy. We send people home by the 10s of thousands who have come here to study or work legally, have not committed any crime or broken any law, and who desperately want to stay and have proven they will contribute, but we send their butts home and offer amnesty to people who broke all the laws those people respectfully followed. I don't get it.

FWIW I'm pretty strongly pro immigration, it has been the life blood of our nation from the beginning, and I welcome people to the country, but I don't plan on handing out citizenship to everyone who breaks the law to get in and not even go through the same tough process we put others through who follow the law. That seems patently unfair to me. It's like a class of kids and only 2-3 get As and the rest dont' study and didn't do what the teacher asked and get Fs and you decide to just give everyone an A. How is that fair to those who studied and did what the teacher asked?

Anyway, that deviates from this decision, but color me very suspect whenever a Congressionally passed law hamstrings the ability of a state to exercise a Constitutionally granted power. Pass and Amendment and we can hamstring it all we want, but it cant' be done by whim of Congress, regardless of whether that hamstringing was intentional or an unintentional byproduct of the legislation.

[KeithKSR]

How does SCOTUS expect states to put ant bite into the perjury portion of the law if they do not allow states to require proof of citizenship? Arizona accepted a valid post-'96 driver's license as proof of citizenship, and it is a motor voter law.

I think it should be illegal for states to allow voting without a photo ID.

[dan_bgblue]

Lawmakers working to end run the ruling (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/republicans-push-to-let-states-require-citizenship-proof-after-court-strikes/)

In a blow to Arizona's efforts to toughen its voter ID standards, the high court on Monday ruled 7-2 that states could not unilaterally require would-be voters to prove citizenship in order to use a federal registration form. The court ruled that because the federal "Motor Voter" registration law -- which created the form -- doesn't require that documentation, Arizona could not on its own demand it.

In response, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and David Vitter, R-La., announced an amendment to the Senate immigration overhaul that would explicitly allow states to impose those requirements.

In a statement, Cruz said the Supreme Court ruling leaves a "hole in federal law" that must be addressed.

"This encourages voter fraud and we must ensure that our elections are fair and accurately reflect the will of our citizens," he said.