- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Kansas, Arizona win proof-of-citizenship requirement in voting suit.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:45 pm
quote:
A federal judge has ruled that Kansas and Arizona should be allowed to require voters to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship, in a case closely watched by both sides dealing with the question of voter eligibility.
U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren in Wichita, Kan., ruled that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission had no legal authority to deny requests from the two states to add the citizenship requirement. In the ruling, released Wednesday, he ordered the commission to revise the national form immediately.
Wow. Common sense.
LINK
2
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:47 pm to GumboPot
Seems like common sense to me.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:52 pm to Scruffy
If you take a second to think about it, Holder likely made the suit for political reasons. If the court rules with them they get two wins, the court ruling and an opportunity to pander to Latinos. If the court ruled against them (as they did here) they still got the opportunity to pander.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 8:54 pm to Scruffy
Wait a second. How was this NOT governed by the Arizona case?
I need to find this ruling.
I need to find this ruling.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:06 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Wait a second. How was this NOT governed by the Arizona case?
I need to find this ruling.
This story just peaked my interest due to its political implications.
If you find anything I'd be interested on what you find on how this ruling was reconciled with "Arizona" case you are referring to.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:19 pm to GumboPot
Okay I just read the opinion and the original EAC opinion, and I believe the judge Made a pretty sound ruling (although I certainly see te other side).
To understand why the Arizona case from last term doesn't apply, you have to understand the federal form produced as a result of the Motor Voter Act. On each federal form, they have federal requirements and state specific requirements. The state specific ones are up to the states (they tell the EAC what to put on the ) and the federal specific portion, as relevant here, just makes you declare, under penalty of perjury, that you meet the state requirements.
In the Arizona case from last term, Arizona refused to accept the federal form unless the person submitted proof of citizenship. The SCOTUS said that neither the state specific portion or the federal portion required proof of citizenship, so the state couldn't require proof of citizenship when federal law didn't. But, as the court does so well sometimes, they specifically stated that Arizona was free to petition the EAC to add a requirement for it under the state specific section (which would necessarily impact the federal part because it relies on the state part).
Arizona and Kansas did just that. The EAC said that they didn't hae to grant the request to change the language, the federal judge said they did. So, there are no state decisis issues, as Arizona and Kansas just did exactly what the SCOTUS told them to do. It's now just a matter of statutory interpretation over whether the EAC must honor the state's requests or if it has the discretion to decide what goes in the state specific portion.
Eta: on phone tried to correct typos and autocorrect.
To understand why the Arizona case from last term doesn't apply, you have to understand the federal form produced as a result of the Motor Voter Act. On each federal form, they have federal requirements and state specific requirements. The state specific ones are up to the states (they tell the EAC what to put on the ) and the federal specific portion, as relevant here, just makes you declare, under penalty of perjury, that you meet the state requirements.
In the Arizona case from last term, Arizona refused to accept the federal form unless the person submitted proof of citizenship. The SCOTUS said that neither the state specific portion or the federal portion required proof of citizenship, so the state couldn't require proof of citizenship when federal law didn't. But, as the court does so well sometimes, they specifically stated that Arizona was free to petition the EAC to add a requirement for it under the state specific section (which would necessarily impact the federal part because it relies on the state part).
Arizona and Kansas did just that. The EAC said that they didn't hae to grant the request to change the language, the federal judge said they did. So, there are no state decisis issues, as Arizona and Kansas just did exactly what the SCOTUS told them to do. It's now just a matter of statutory interpretation over whether the EAC must honor the state's requests or if it has the discretion to decide what goes in the state specific portion.
Eta: on phone tried to correct typos and autocorrect.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:25 pm to FalseProphet
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:30 pm to GumboPot
Good.
There's really no reason at all to oppose this.
There's really no reason at all to oppose this.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:36 pm to GumboPot
Do you wonder why we need honesty in elections? 2 elections ago, I saw the teachers union leader and a Democratic parish official go get the Headstart vans and go to a sweet potato farm and pick up 40 Mexicans to go down and vote for Obama in the 1st election. I talked to them and they could not speak English and were here for only a month to pick potatoes for Bush can goods company. They had a little piece of paper the Teacher gave them to know how to vote. The Democratic state Senator only won by 50 votes and 40 were made by the Mexicans. This is why we need ID's, to be honest. I bet they vote for Landrieu too.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:42 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
I talked to them and they could not speak English and were here for only a month to pick potatoes for Bush can goods company.
Bush's fault your state Senator democrat won.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:47 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
Do you wonder why we need honesty in elections? 2 elections ago, I saw the teachers union leader and a Democratic parish official go get the Headstart vans and go to a sweet potato farm and pick up 40 Mexicans to go down and vote for Obama in the 1st election. I talked to them and they could not speak English and were here for only a month to pick potatoes for Bush can goods company. They had a little piece of paper the Teacher gave them to know how to vote. The Democratic state Senator only won by 50 votes and 40 were made by the Mexicans. This is why we need ID's, to be honest. I bet they vote for Landrieu too.
I saw the same thing happen when I lived in Las Vegas, only change out "Sweet Potato Farm Employees" for "Casino Kitchen, Custodial and Housekeeping Employees"
Posted on 3/19/14 at 9:49 pm to deltaland
quote:
Bush's fault your state Senator democrat won.
I had the same thought. Bush strikes again.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 10:02 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Seems like common sense to me.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News