No they haven't...its like the reichwing here in NC trying to pass tougher voting requirement while citing an unsubstantiated need to prevent voter fraud...

People should ask themselves why is it the same people trying to impose all of the new laws and requirements on us...the reichwing is big on mandating invasive tests for pregnant women and preventing gays from marrying but have done nothing to prevent rich white pewople from hiring illegal aliens or put a stop to the religious right imposing their biblical nonsense on the rest of us...

hahahah yes slowly

Is there anything that a U.S. citizen can do that an illegal can't?

That law requires no proof of citizenship. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.

I stand by what I said. Signing a piece of paper is neither complicated nor disenfranchising.

If its ok to require a U.S citizen to have to prove they are a U.S. Citizen, are not mentally incompetent, not a Felon, have not committed domestic abuse, etc, and have to go through a federal background check to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to legally purchase and own a firearm, why shouldn't we require people to prove they are a U.S. citizen to exercise their right to vote?

Because if someone actually commits voter fraud, you can put them in jail and rescind their vote. The fraud is reversible. Can you give life back to the victims who have died due to gun violence?

If you want to see the problem with gun violence, I can show you 10,000 Americans who die due to gun violence every year.

How many cases of voter fraud can you show in the entire country?

David, Of course you would include a Fox News article. It is not as if you bring any logical arguments on here. You show how Fox News only attacks the Democrats but not the Republican voter fraud that took place to upset Democratic voters. Such as the voter ID laws where politicians boasted that they would win a state for Romney. If this is for fairness, how about the Right stop blabbing their mouths about how this is specifically to win states for Republicans.

And as for your argument about comparing background checks on voting to background checks on buying guns, your stats need to be comparable as well. There is significantly less than 1% (if any) of votes tied to illegals voting but a hell of a lot of gun deaths tied to illegally owned weapons. Not even in the same ballpark.

And Probusiness, The background checks for guns are so felons and criminals won't own them, not a citizen issue like your statement insinuates.

So I lie on the form and say that I am a citizen which, is not true. I do so under oath. But, what does that matter, when the Justice Department declines to prosecute such cases?

No liberal can certainly argue with that logic.

Funny. And when the points you raise are easily answered you start telling us about how immature liberals are. I am looking forward to your next post, in which you will proceed to explain how stupid I am, without ever managing to address the discussion.

So I lie on the form and say that I am a citizen which, is not true. I do so under oath. But, what does that matter, when the Justice Department declines to prosecute such cases?

Could you give us more information about who you are? Actually, could you share such information with your local law enforcement? I am sure they would be very interested.

Or are you trying to allege that there are vast hordes of illegal immigrants who fraudulently put Obama into office? We are supposed to believe you, whereas we are supposed to think that law enforcement authorities are lying. Right.

You really live in a fantasy world don't you. You really think they reversed the 6 votes the woman in Chicago admitted to casting or any of the others they found?

So you are telling us that the margin of victory was less than 6 votes?

Your side tell us that there's hordes of illegal voters who stole the election for Obama. And we are the ones who "really live in a fantasy world don't you." Right.

Why are you bothering to argue about votes? Just keep telling yourself he's a Kenyan.

The law is being challenged by Indian Tribes. Technically, American Indians are not US citizens but citizens of "autonomous tribal authorities." Their citizenship status has been pieced together from a patchwork of the 14th Amendment (which excluded Indians living on tribal lands) and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and finally the Nationality Act of 1940 (which was actually intended to pave the way to put Japanese-American US citizens in concentration camps). Even with all these federal laws, New Mexico and Arizona forbade American Indians to vote as late as 1948. This was all done through a series of loopholes and exceptions in the laws. New Mexico finally allowed the Indians to vote in 1950 because of a judicial ruling. But New Mexico atill has laws on the books that forbid American Indians to vote and still routinely refuse to register American Indians to vote. Adding Latinos to the list of hated cultures has been quite easy for Arizona.

JS the same could be said for Pro-2nd Amendment people. There are proven cases where automatic weapons slaughtered people and it could have been avoided if they were banned and everyone is up in arms. But they are perfectly okay with forcing old people who have voted for years that no longer drive and have no ID to make their way to the DMV and wait for hours just so they can vote. You show me a dozen cases where illegal non-citizens voted when they shouldn't have and I will agree to your point. Otherwise you can say voter fraud is a problem but providing ID to register has to be the cause of these problems for this law to make sense.

There are proven cases where automatic weapons slaughtered people and it could have been avoided if they were banned and everyone is up in arms.

Then provide proof. Give us a link proving an "Automatic weapon" was used in a mass murder.

Byron: Go back to school and learn "reading comprehension".

the same thing should be done in the purchase of a firearm; just sign a statement that you are not a convicted felon, or domestic abuse, or have any mental problem and are over 18 years old, and viola, walk out with a gun, all this nonsense about background checks, will just intimidate those people who should not have a gun from getting one.

Prove that you are an American citizen to vote in an American election.

There should be NO skepticism about that.

Ahh yes David. Proving you are living in a bubble where you did not hear about a tragedy in Connecticut at a school called Sandy Hook. And Democrats don't push through laws for the sole purpose of winning California. Show me proof that a law in California or New York were set up specifically to make sure Republicans do not win the state. And you say whoever is in office is more dangerous than a gun? Would you say that if Romney was in office? Probably not.

I think the Arizona legislature should be required to show proof of intelligence.... could be quite a stretch considering their track record.

@DavidNoah,

You can't kill someone with a vote, but you can with a gun, hence the need for universal background checks for guns, and registration too. You have to register your car for crying out loud.

The whole purpose of the federal voting rights act is to make it easier to vote, not more difficult.

Byron: Sorry, a right is a right is a right is a right. We don't "weigh" rights. So if the right to vote is acceptable to have a signed statement then the right to own a gun should have equal due process.

I could argue that eliminating the right of the 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) would save a lot more lives than gun control. Imagine if the police could randomly search your person, your car, or come in your house at any time. Cops can use a master key required by law for every lock to accept and they can just enter any house at will.

Imagine how many drug labs we could put out of business and save lives. Imagine how many illegal guns we could find in Chicago ALONE and save thousands of lives. Imagine how many crimes we can stop. Yes, since you are so easy to nonchalantly take away a persons rights let's start with the 4th amendment. Let's see how that goes over with the population. Sorry, the only way to try and have true "safe" environments is to take away all rights and we do not believe in that in the U.S. (at least not yet).

But I suspect that right would be defended and so should the 2nd amendment. So if the right to vote only needs a signed statement so should the right to keep and bear arms. It is SO fun to watch a liberal trying to squirm through a logical comparison and trying to find a way for their illogical argument to try and make sense.

David, I'll go even farther and say that a vote is far more deadly than any firearm. Just look at how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have died as a result of the decision of elected politicians.

Voting is a right protected by the 15th Amendment. Gun ownership is a right protected under the 2nd Amendment. Both Amendments use similar language "Shall not be infringed/Shall not be denied or abridged".

It's pretty simple, what's good for one Constitutional right should be good with another.

Ahh yes David. Proving you are living in a bubble where you did not hear about a tragedy in Connecticut at a school called Sandy Hook.

Ah yes Byron. Proving you are living in a bubble using the death of 20 children to push an agenda.

"If its saves just one Life its worth it." -V.P. Joe Biden

"Children are our most important asset." President Barrack Obama.

Lets talk about the 55 Million unborn children that have been aborted in the last 40 years since Row vs Wade, 1.37 million a year, 114,000 a month, 3800 a day...

Oh thats right, the left supports and adamentlyy defends the procedure that has resulted in 55 million children not being born so you probably dont want to talk about the death of those 55 million children ...

ProBusiness: Why are you arguing with someone who is so obviously, ignorant?

The issue with requiring photo ID to vote is that in order to get said photo ID, you have to pay money for it. Also, unless you are really prepared and ALWAYS have your certified copy of your birth certificate on hand, you have to pay money to get the documentation in order to obtain the photo ID. Requiring someone PAY in order to exercise their right to vote was ruled illegal (POLL TAX) by the US Supreme Court. So unless the states who want to require photo ID are providing that photo ID *free of charge* and unless EVERY state provides certified copies of birth certificates free of charge, the photo ID requirement is a POLL TAX and is thus unconstitutional and ILLEGAL.

The issue with the Arizona Law that the USSC is reviewing is that it requires that NATURALIZED citizens show up in person with their ORIGINAL naturalization paperwork in order to register to vote. This is regardless of whether they're new to the country or have been here for 50 years. It would be akin to requiring a NATURAL BORN citizen now having to show their ORIGINAL (as opposed to a certified copy) birth certificate in order to register to vote, regardless of how old you are. It also sets up a different standard for one type of citizen than for others. Which, again, in terms of federal right to vote, is AGAINST THE LAW.

If ya'll (and Arizona) can't understand the above paragraphs and WHY they are AGAINST THE LAW, then there is no hope for you.

Cat-1200657

The issue with requiring photo ID to vote is that in order to get said photo ID, you have to pay money for it. Also, unless you are really prepared and ALWAYS have your certified copy of your birth certificate on hand, you have to pay money to get the documentation in order to obtain the photo ID. Requiring someone PAY in order to exercise their right to vote was ruled illegal (POLL TAX) by the US Supreme Court. So unless the states who want to require photo ID are providing that photo ID *free of charge* and unless EVERY state provides certified copies of birth certificates free of charge, the photo ID requirement is a POLL TAX and is thus unconstitutional and ILLEGAL.

I just prove I'm an AMERICAN by showing people the draft card the law still requires me to carry from the Vietnam Era. That was another of the wars Mexico was too gutless to help Americans out in.

Mexican logic: If I can walk into a bank, I am also entitled to the money in the safe!

GOP Voter Depression, you would think the Republicans would be getting tired of looking Stupid !!!

William, your phuquing draft card would not be proof of citizenship or proof of identity under many Voter ID laws. If your SOCIAL SECURITY CARD or PHOTO COLLEGE ID OR FREAKING VOTER REGISTRATION are not proper for proving identity (yet NRA membership card WOULD BE) what makes you think that your draft card is proper id? I split up my comment into two distinct paragraphs addressing two different aspects FOR A REASON. In NO freaking state that has a Voter ID law is a draft card acceptable proof of citizenship or identity to get a photo ID. The state DMV requires a BIRTH CERTIFICATE for that purpose. Therefore, your argument is invalid and incorrect and IDIOTIC.

Voter ID laws aren't about stopping illegal immigrants from voting, they're about an excuse to turn away undesirable voters at the polls for things like forgetting an ID, expired drivers license, and more popularly, a claim that the ID doesn't belong to the person showing it, "This isn't you, it's fake."

It's an attempt to suppress the minority vote.

If its OK for the federal government to put such requirements on one Right guaranteed in the Constitution, the Second Amendment, why isn't it OK to put the same burdens on the others?

Background checks for firearms purchases don't prevent qualified citizens from owning firearms. Voter ID laws DO prevent citizens from voting, and that's the point of State Voter ID laws. The argument about keeping illegals from voting is disingenuous.

Voter ID laws are political in nature and seek to win elections for Republican candidates by suppressing the minority vote at the polls. Discouraging minority voting has been an active goal for conservatives for decades. In the South, institutional, open, and unapologetic voter suppression necessitated the Voting Rights Act.. And, even now, in every federal election, a number of techniques are used by political organizations to discourage minority voting:

- State Attorneys General providing one voting machine for urban, democratic precincts, while displacing the rest to rural and suburban, conservative precincts.

- State police placing road blocks on streets leading to polling places in democratic districts

- political organizations sending official looking cards and letters to citizens in democratic districts telling them that they were not registered or ineligible to vote, and that if they attempted to vote that they would be arrested - or sending official looking letters instructing voters in democratic districts to vote on a different day or at a different place.

It's not about illegal immigrants voting. It's about preventing American citizens from voting.

Here's the lefts Hypocrisy rearing its ugly head again.

If its ok to require a U.S citizen to have to prove they are a U.S. Citizen, are not mentally incompetent, not a Felon, have not committed domestic abuse, etc, and have to go through a federal background check to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to legally purchase and own a firearm, why shouldn't we require people to prove they are a U.S. citizen to exercise their right to vote?

Background checks for firearms purchases don't prevent qualified citizens from owning firearms. Voter ID laws DO prevent citizens from voting. That's one of the differences.

I can understand someone not understanding the differences between these two issues if that person thinks about them in a certain frame. What's interesting, though, and something that I actually never thought of before is that: if someone didn't understand the difference between these two issues, but supported Voter ID Laws while opposing background checks for firearms purchases, wouldn't that make THAT person the hypocrite?

Guarantee that if illegals voted primarily Republican that Democrats would be setting up citizenship panels at every polling place.

Just something to think about for all the folks who don’t want voter ID laws: The primary illegal’s in this country are from Mexico. There are others of course, but the majority are coming over from Mexico. If the states do as you suggest and go after them post election, the responses from the left wing will be “racism” “profiling” and “voter disenfranchisement” (since of course many Hispanics will say they are afraid to vote because they may be questioned after the fact).

From the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org/articles/2006/back106.html):

• “The share of the foreign-born population who are illegal aliens has risen steadily. Illegal aliens made up 21 percent of the foreign-born in 1980, 25 percent in 2000, and 28 percent in 2005.”
• “Mexico is the primary source country of both legal and illegal immigrants. Mexico accounted for about 30 percent of the foreign-born in 2000, and more than half of Mexicans residing in the United States in 2000
  were illegal aliens.”

So by all means, states should start going after everyone who casts an illegal vote. Lock them up, and (when appropriate) deport them. That will be one way of cleaning the voter rolls. But you’re not going to like it.

Since putting false information on the voter registration is under penalty of perjury, I wonder if AZ has actually prosecuted anyone under the current law?

Perhaps they haven't had concern in the past, but they do know how those blue states operate and know that they are being over-whelmed by a demographic that will be complelety accepting of screw over the voters.

Anyone that doesn't believe that voter fraud happens in these northern blue states is lying or an idiot.

Guarantee that if illegals voted primarily Republican that Democrats would be setting up citizenship panels at every polling place.

You kidding? They'd be calling for executions.

Background checks for firearms purchases don't prevent qualified citizens from owning firearms. Voter ID laws DO prevent citizens from voting. That's one of the differences.

Prove it.

I noticed you left out "Qualified" in your second sentence.

Brandon (1.17) - If a site like MSNBC or CNN would report things such as a voter fraud from the democratic party, he likely would have posted a link to that article. Are you insinuating that the article on Fox News is made up and incorrect?? How is this not a logical argument? How many people on here are asking for proof of voter fraud. Here is a woman who voted over and over again. You don't see a problem with that?? If you read the article (heaven forbid) you would actually see that there are multiple cases similar to this being prosecuted in Ohio. Funny thing is, they are all democrats who voted for Obama.

Republicans are not trying to keep people from legally voting. That is the main stream, Democrat argument. I find it amazing that all these people who travel by plane, or pay for things with credit cards, etc suddenly don't have the necessary ID to show when they vote.

Like most gun control advocates, you are also missing the point here. Those guns that are owned illegally, were most likely not purchased in a gun shop or even at a gun show. They were purchased on the street. No matter how many gun control laws or background check laws are passed, there will still never be a way to control the sale of a gun in an alley. The background checks are in place for gun ownership to attempt to prevent a felon from owning one. Funny thing is, felons aren't supposed to be voting either. Why is there no effort to prevent them from entering the voting booth? The results person they vote for can have as devastating an impact on society as a gun in the wrong hands.

Noah, they can't prove one case of a disenfranchised voter from voter ID laws, yet there is proof of voter fraud from the last election. But they do not care about that, because they only care about winning.

Rights do not matter to them unless they feel they aren't winning.

I find it amazing that all these people who travel by plane, or pay for things with credit cards, etc suddenly don't have the necessary ID to show when they vote.

Or work the polls. LOL, oh right, she didn't need ID, she was the poll police.

As I've said in previous threads on this post, there is nothing inherently wrong with this law, but if there is already a federal law created to make this a safe and easy process, then this will be just another law written by idiots that don't actually know the law, and will soon be thrown out. Ah well.

ProBusiness

Byron: Sorry, a right is a right is a right is a right. We don't "weigh" rights. So if the right to vote is acceptable to have a signed statement then the right to own a gun should have equal due process.

The premise is here false. Rights are not unlimited, and they are limited in different ways, based on the limitations defined by SCOTUS decisions over the centuries.

Our rights are not unlimited. the first and most obvious natural limit to an individual right is the limitation defined by the rights of others. There's a famous analogy that's become a cliche regarding the natural limit of individual rights, written in an early SCOTUS decision by Marshall that goes something like, "the right to swing one's arm extends to the tip of another's nose.". It means that my rights extend to and are limited by the rights of another.

From this idea, we get a long line of SCOTUS decisions that define the various rights in different ways, based on the questions of the individual cases.

for example, I think most people are familiar with certain well-known limits of free speech: defamation, slander, fighting words, copyright infringement, fraud, as well as speech that is limited situationally, like perjury or expressing military secrets.

The same is true for other rights. there are limits to religious rights, and the press, as well as the 2nd amendment.

In DC vs Heller in 2008, in which the court ruled that:

"the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in one’s home."

Scalia wrote this in the majority opinion,

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.”

Our rights are limited, and the exact shape of those limits is defined by the court. And the limitations of each right are all different, shaped by questions put to the court regarding conflict of one's rights with another's, and the shape of those limitations s constantly changing with new and novel questions posed to the court.

So, our rights are not unlimited, they never have been. They have a natural limitation of the right's of others'. they are not absolute. They are not all the same or limited in the same ways.

Equating the limitations of one individual right with another is a false equivalency. This is why your premise is false. and therefore doesn't support the conclusion.

@Brandon - your response in 1.28 in 1.34 is false. That was a semi-automatic weapon that was used in Sandy Hook. You were asked to provided an example of when an automatic weapon was used. You probably wouldn't know the difference though. Just keep spouting off with your crap.

David Noah

Background checks for firearms purchases don't prevent qualified citizens from owning firearms. Voter ID laws DO prevent citizens from voting. That's one of the differences.

Prove it.

OK

Voter ID proposals require specific forms of ID and exclude other forms of official ID which vary from state to state. My state, which already has a Voter ID law, requires either a valid drivers license or a valid state ID card. If a citizen does not have a drivers license or ID card, has an expired drivers license, an out of state drivers license, has lost their license, left it in their other pants, or if the poll worker merely says that he/she suspects that the ID is fake or has been altered in some way, then that citizen is not permitted to vote.

It's antics like this which damage the Republican party and no amount of BS Soul Searching crap they puke out to the media will repair the damage they deservedly earned. They tried through the last election to scare voters away from the booth BECAUSE they knew they couldn't win honestly and legally.

But this court can surprise and give away rights so who knows for sure what they outcome will be. Just look at Citizens United.

Zen609 you do realize that the REAL ID act of 2005 requires everyone in the U.S. to have a valid state issued ID that meets Federal Guidlines?

So whats the Problem?

If we are required to have a REAL ID for federal goverenmtn "official purposes" such as to fly on a commercial airline or enter Federal Buildings why shouldn't you be required to have one to vote in a Federal Election?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

The law set forth certain requirements for state driver's licenses and ID cards to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes", as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security has currently defined "official purposes" as presenting state driver's licenses and identification cards for boarding commercially operated airline flights and entering federal buildings and nuclear power plants.

...

Federally mandated standards for state driver's licenses or ID cards

Driver's license implications

• The REAL ID Act's implications for driver's licenses and ID cards is detailed in Title II of the Act. Title II of REAL ID — “Improved Security for Driver’s License and Personal Identification Cards” — repeals the driver's licenses provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act,^[14] also known as the "9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004", that was enacted in December 2004. Section 7212 of that law established a cooperative state-federal process, via a negotiated rule-making procedure, to create federal standards for driver’s licenses.

Instead, the Real ID Act directly imposes specific federal driver’s license standards.

The REAL ID Act Driver's License Summary^[15] details the following provisions of the Act's driver's license title:

• Authority
• Data Retention and Storage
• DL/ID Document Standards
• Grants to States
• Immigration Requirements
• Linking of Databases
• Minimum DL/ID Issuance Standards
• Minimum Standards for Federal Use
• Repeal of 9/11 Commission Implementation Act DL/ID Provisions
• Security and Fraud Prevention Standards
• Verification of Documents

After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. The DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used for official federal purposes without seeking the approval of Congress before doing so. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.^[16]

People born on or after December 1, 1964, will have to obtain a REAL ID by December 1, 2014. Those born before December 1, 1964, will have until December 1, 2017 to obtain their REAL ID.^[17]

The national license/ID standards cover:

• How the states must share their databases both domestically and internationally through AAMVA.
• What data must be included on the card and what technology it is encoded with;
• What documentation must be presented and electronically stored before a card can be issued.

Strictly speaking, many of these requirements are not new. They replace similar language in Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub.L. 108–458), which had not yet gone into effect before being repealed by the Real ID Act.

[edit] Data requirements

A Real ID-compliant form of identification requires, at a minimum, the following pieces of data:

• Full legal name,
• Signature,
• Date of birth,
• Gender,
• Unique, identifying number,
• Principal residence address,
• Front-facing photograph of the applicant.

Said cards must also feature specific security features intended to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes. These cards must also present data in a common, machine-readable format (bar codes, Smart card technology, etc.). Although the use of wireless RFID chips was offered for consideration in the proposed rulemaking process, it was not included in the latest rulemaking process.^[18] DHS could consider additional technological requirements to be incorporated into the licenses after consulting with the states. In addition, DHS has required the use of RFID chips in its Enhanced Driver's License program, which the Department is proposing as an alternative to REAL ID.^[19]

[edit] Documentation required before issuing a license or ID card

Before a card can be issued, the applicant must provide the following documentation:^[20]

• A photo ID, or a non-photo ID that includes full legal name and birthdate.
• Documentation of birth date.
• Documentation of legal status and Social Security number
• Documentation showing name and principal residence address.

Digital images of each identity document will be stored in each state DMV database.

Zen609 - if they don't have a license or ID card how do they do anything in life that requires one to have such items? How did they drive to the poll? How do they cash their paycheck/welfare check? How do they use their credit card? Why wouldn't one just go renew their license or ID card, especially if voting is that important to them? The excuses you use are BS, plain and simple. I have to provide proof of insurance to register my car. I find no reason why one should not have to provide proof of citizenship to vote.

Our rights are limited, and the exact shape of those limits is defined by the court. And the limitations of each right are all different, shaped by questions put to the court regarding conflict of one's rights with another's, and the shape of those limitations s constantly changing with new and novel questions posed to the court.

So, our rights are not unlimited, they never have been. They have a natural limitation of the right's of others'. they are not absolute. They are not all the same or limited in the same ways.

Equating the limitations of one individual right with another is a false equivalency. This is why your premise is false. and therefore doesn't support the conclusion.

Okay, I will agree with you that our rights are limited. If that is the case, and ALL of our rights are limited, the right to vote can be as well. Do I not have a right to ensure my vote is counted and applicable to the election? If just one voter commits voter fraud, that offsets my vote and therefore my right to vote and have my vote count has been infringed.

wood, from today's oral arguments...

JUSTICE BREYER: What use are you making of that?

MR. HORNE: Well, Your Honor, we are making use of it and I just mentioned -­

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, I know -- I'm sure you are and then my question is how?

MR. HORNE: By prosecuting -- there have been ten prosecutions in one year alone of people who swore falsely. Out of the hundreds that were caught swearing falsely, ten in fact were prosecuted.

JUSTICE BREYER: By?

MR. HORNE: But that -- but that is not a -­ that is not a sufficient use or that is not a sufficient measure of determining eligibility, because literally hundreds have been caught swearing jury -- jury commissioner forms swearing they are not citizens after they had already registered to vote. Other people were caught in their applications to citizenship when they checked and found that they had previously registered to vote and voted.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-71.pdf

Since putting false information on the voter registration is under penalty of perjury, I wonder if AZ has actually prosecuted anyone under the current law?

The form is a federal form, Arizona is unable to prosecute the crime...

It will be nice when the day a liberal knows even one bit of what they are talking about is apparent.

The USSC already ruled that identification requirements are not an undue burden to voters, see Michigan, 2008.

I honestly don't get why liberals are so uninformed on this matter.

Zen609 you do realize that the REAL ID act of 2005 requires everyone in the U.S. to have a valid state issued ID that meets Federal Guidlines?

REAL ID Act is an terrible law - and almost no one likes it anymore. It was part of that flurry of security acts by the bush administration during the 'War on Terror'. but now, it seems that the only people that like it are the Heritage foundation and Pat Robertson. Most conservatives don't like it, and liberals have always hated it. the Obama Administration doesn't like it and neither do the GOP congressional leaders. So, it might get killed or amended to death.

It doesn't require us to have a REAL ID now. What it does, in terms of the ID part of the law, is standardize state ID practices. The fed wants all states to have standardized procedures with standardized data with a common database.

The law wants the state IDs of everyone born before 1964 to have to be REAL IDs by 2014, and those born after 1964after to have one by 2017. It doesn't mean that we are REQUIRED any ID at all, but it requires that all state issued IDs be REAL IDs by those dates for those age groups.

Having said that, one of the concerns about this law is that there is nothing in the law that prevents REAL IDs from being required in order to vote or cash checks, fly, etc - meaning that other forms of ID could be replaced by REAL ID. That's a valid concern.

So, as individuals, we're not required to have a REAL ID. But it is possible that, because of how badly, vaguely, and broadly, this law is written - it is possible that state-issued REAL IDs could be required to do things like vote, apply for SS, medicare, fly, etc. So, while individuals are not required to have a REAL ID, it's possible that at some point in the future, if you want to vote, or open a bank account, or fly on a commercial, that you could have to have a state-issued REAL ID in order to do those things.

NVArt

. I have to provide proof of insurance to register my car. I find no reason why one should not have to provide proof of citizenship to vote.

We provide proof of citizenship when we register to vote. Voter ID laws are just an excuse to turn away already registered voters, at the polls because they left their license in their pocket when they washed their pants and the laminate peeled, making it invalid. It allows partisan election officials to turn away registered voters for all sorts of technicalities regarding IDs, or to just say, "I think it's fake" or, "this isn't you." And then you don't get to vote.

STLMIke

If that is the case, and ALL of our rights are limited, the right to vote can be as well.

The right to vote is limited now has been in the past in various ways: slaves couldn't vote, people that didn't own property couldn't vote, women couldn't vote, people under certain ages couldn't vote at various times, debtors couldn't vote, illiterates couldn't vote, the poor couldn't vote (via poll taxes), confederates couldn't vote for about 15 years, the mentally ill can't vote, convicted felons can't vote.

But just because there are limitations on a right, does not support a proposition for any limitation that you want - that's non sequitur.

If just one voter commits voter fraud, that offsets my vote and therefore my right to vote and have my vote count has been infringed.

Well, no - even in this hypothetical case of voter fraud, your vote still counted.

But I like your comment because the argumentation reminded me of something a I saw a long tome ago:

I watched a debate on TV about the death penalty. It was probably a point/counterpoint type segment on a local news show or something. In the heat of the debate, the pro-death penalty guy said something like, "Well, I'd rather execute an innocent man than let a murderer go free."

I immediately thought, "If you execute an innocent man, you ARE letting a murderer go free."

REAL ID Act is an terrible law - and almost no one likes it anymore.

Do you have any proof to substantiate that "almost no one likes it anymore" claim?

I like the idea that everyone in the U.S. is required to have ID and that the ID fulfills a minimum set of requirements which are consistent across all the states to prove people are who they say they are.

Why would you be against that?

You like the idea of terrorists and illegal immigrants being in the country and being able to get an ID using falsified documents, stealing someone else's identity, creating a fake ID, etc.

If new Gun laws are passed to require Universal Background checks how are you going to accomplish that if every State has different ID requirements?

That is what the REAL ID act is meant to address. To make sure all the States are following the same rigor, the same document verifications and requirements for issuing an ID.

Do you have any proof to substantiate that "almost no one likes it anymore" claim?

Yeah - it's just what I've gathered from criticisms of it by different groups. You can google it to see what groups have taken which positions on it.

It's one of those issues that's not partisan in support or opposition:

I'm doing a quick search and it looks like Pat Roberston doesn't support it any more.

- opposing it on the Conservative side - there's strong opposition from the Cato Institute, Mike Huckabee, , Gun Owners of America, the ACLJ, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Rand Paul - libertarians in general and fiscal conservative types - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lamar Alexander, Charles Hagel. John Sununu - it's actually a lot of fiscal conservative-type Republicans. so, it's those people and libertarian groups, a lot of gun groups

- opposing it on the liberal side - AFL-CIO, ACLU, the Obama Administration. the EFF, - civil rights groups, human rights groups, that kinda thing

Those are a few that have made strong statements in opposition.

Those that strongly support it: the Bush Administration, John McCain, the Heritage Foundation, Anti-Immigration groups.

There seem to be a ;lot of state level people on both sides that oppose it for obvious reasons.

Conservatives in general don't like it because they see it as a usurpation of state powers by the fed, and that's a major issue for conservatives. This essentially the same reason that libertarian groups don't like it. In general, conservatives point to the 10th amendment with issues like this.

Liberals don't like the encroachment on individual rights and privacy issues, and point to the 4th Amendment.

There are plenty of constitutional suits from both sides, conservatives making 10th amendment arguments, and liberals making 4th amendment arguments.

The people that like it are the ultra-security people, like the Bushie neo-cons, who wanted to lock everything down, police-state style, with the Patriot Act, and the FISA expansions, etc, and the anti-immigration people.

There are really strong arguments against the constitutionality of large parts of this law. There's also been reviisitation in congress, so I think this thing isn't going to fly.

Why would you be against that?

Personally, I don't really care too much. I think it's going to die on it's own.

The reasons I would oppose it if I had to care about it would be 4th amendment issues, But also, I'm an American, and in general, historically, we don't like the idea of some fed or cop stopping us and asking for our papers. It's always been a very unpopular idea regardless of political affiliation among everyday Americans. It's something that we used to associate with police states like DDR (East Germany), the Soviet Union, and of course, we all all have that imagery of the movie-NAZI SS guy stopping someone suspiciously and saying something like "Let me see your papers", or "Papers please", in a thick, sinister, Northern Austrian/Southern Bavarian accent.

I don't like bureaucracy in general. It's necessary in cases, but I really prefer to minimize it. I also prefer to minimize government screwing around with me and my life as much as possible. My opinion about these issues surrounding illegal immigration is that I only really care about this issue when it jerks me around.

In other words, the government can do whatever the majority decide to do, or whatever policy is come to through political compromise. But if we have to change fundamental policies that effect me negatively, then I'm going to oppose them. If some faction of our population is all hot and bothered by illegal immigrants, then feel free to pursue solutions to satisfy yourselves, but if it bothers me personally or effects Americans' rights, then I'm going to oppose it. Any solution or policy that screws with American's rights is just out of the question. That issue isn't worth it. It's like seeing a cockroach in your kitchen and killing it with a bazooka.

Just because governments in some states violate 2nd amendment rights should not give politicians carte blanche to pass discriminatory voter registration laws. Politicians will pass any law that emboldens them and their cronies and/or deprives their constituents of their rights. The last thing we should be doing is egging them on. They already regularly pass laws that are unconstitutional and that they know will be overturned in court. It's a shameful abuse of power.

Zen: But you erred in one major context to your opinion.

You say a right can be limited and then went on to discuss speech/etc. But only in the context of the 2nd amendment do you approve of restricting a right IN CASE you break the law.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. We don't ask people to get a license to "speak in public" and then ask to hear what they have to say first IN CASE they say something slanderous/etc. No, we tell people they have the RIGHT to free speech but to use that right responsibly AND if you abuse that right then we can take it away from you.

But only in the case of the 2nd amendment do some look to restrict that right IN CASE you use it irresponsibly. No, doesn't work that way. The 2nd amendment is a right - period. If you abuse that right then you can LOSE this right or we can limit that right. But in the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty. We don't restrict rights IN CASE you use it irresponsibly.

So your argument is flawed. A right is a right is a right is a right. You don't have the authority to restrict my right to own a handgun or rifle IN CASE I use irresponsibly. I am responsible for my guns and if I don't at some point THEN you have the authority to restrict. But you don't restrict the rights of 315 million people because you are afraid someone might use a right irresponsibly.

What a bizarre place this nation has become.

I read in the newspaper this morning that the following question was asked: "If what appeared to be a 13 year old boy rode his bicycle to city hall and handed the registrar of voters a completed voter registration form, could the registrar ask the boy what his age was ?"

The answer by an attorney representing the loonie 9th Circuit Court's loonie ruling on the case in front of the Supreme Court was "No...that would be inappropriate".

It is becoming "inappropriate" for anyone with a sane mind to be able to use it in this nation.

Zen - that is still a BS excuse. "I forgot my ID at home" is fixed as easily as driving home and getting it. "My license/ID is from another state" and you are required by law to get another one issued from your new state of residence as soon as you move. "My license/ID is expired" is also fixed as easliy as going to the DMV and getting a new one. As far as someone at the polls saying it looks fake that is fixed by getting a police officer to verify that your license is, in fact, real. All stupid excuses if someone really wants to vote. I bet you were the one in class that said the dog ate your homework.

Zen: But you erred in one major context to your opinion.

It wasn't an opinion, it was a demonstration that your premise is false, and therefore your conclusion is not supported.

Your comment here now is simply doubling down on your original premise, insisting that individual rights are absolute.

What you're saying here is what you wish to be true or what your impression of constitutional rights has been. I know it might be difficult to realize that something that you've thought for years, or something that might be the basis of your political or social opinions might be false, but that's the case here.

So your argument is flawed. A right is a right is a right is a right. You don't have the authority to restrict my right to own a handgun or rifle IN CASE I use irresponsibly.

Again:

In DC vs Heller in 2008, in which the court ruled that:

"the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in one’s home."

Scalia wrote this in the majority opinion,

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.”

Your original argument was that all rights are absolute and unconditional, and therefore equivalent, in order to support another argument that the conditions of one right should apply to conditions of another right.

It's an argumentative chain based on a false premise, that rights are absolute and without limit. Rights are clearly limited and those limits are defined by the SCOTUS.

But there's something else very obvious about this argument aside from the demonstrated false premise that should tip you off that it's false - that your argument is that the conditions of one right should be the same as the conditions of another right because rights are unconditional.

NVArt

Zen - that is still a BS excuse. "I forgot my ID at home" is fixed as easily as driving home and getting it. "My license/ID is from another state" and you are required by law to get another one issued from your new state of residence as soon as you move. "My license/ID is expired" is also fixed as easliy as going to the DMV and getting a new one. As far as someone at the polls saying it looks fake that is fixed by getting a police officer to verify that your license is, in fact, real.

10-11% of Americans don't have or use drivers licenses or cars. Those people are prevented from voting.

College residents and those that work in one one state but live in another often have out-of-state drivers licenses. those people are prevented from voting. People recently relocated often have out-of-state licenses. People that have dual residency often have out-of-state licenses.

Discovering that your drivers license has expired at the polls means that you can't vote, and prevents you from.

The laws make no provisions requiring a poll worker to call police to verify the validity of a license or requiring police to do that. But more importantly, the right to vote is not based on the determination of an poll worker or cop regarding the validity of a license. If the point of Voter ID laws is really to prevent in-person voter fraud, then denying the right to vote based on an expired license, out-of-sate license, or a license invalidated because the laminate peeled doesn't have anything to do with that, does it?

Discovering that your drivers license has expired at the polls means that you can't vote, and prevents you from.

Not in Arizona. You can still file a provisional ballot and get your DL renewed online. Here are a few items that are also acceptable as ID when at a polling location in Arizona.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: ID at the polls is required for all Arizona elections.
Every qualified elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector shall announce his/her name and place of residence or present the elector’s name and residence in writing to the election official. The elector shall present acceptable identification that:
Bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector (See List 1), orTwo different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector (See List 2), orOne form of acceptable photo identification with one form of non-photo identification that bears the name and address of the elector (See List 3)

List 1 - Acceptable forms of identification with photograph, name, and address of the elector
Valid Arizona driver license
Valid Arizona non-operating identification
licenseTribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification

An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement of the elector's residence
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Arizona vehicle insurance card
Recorder's Certificate
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”

An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

List 3 - Acceptable forms of identification, one identification with name and photo of the elector accompanied by one non-photo identification with name and address
Any valid photo identification from List 1 in which the address does not reasonably match the precinct register accompanied by a non-photo identification from List 2 in which the address does reasonably match the precinct register
U.S. Passport without address and one valid item from List 2
U.S. Military identification without address and one valid item from List 2

An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/prop_200/poll_identification.htm

Zen...

In the town across the river from where I live there is an extremely liberal college. Students vote in that city and as freshman, not even 2 months before they have lived in that city or state and while paying zero in any appreciable taxes, they are eligible to vote in state and local elections.

They are not "prevented" from voting...in fact, they have voter registration drives right on campus and have at times swayed local election results for candidates (D) they basically know nothing about except for the (D) after their names.

And nobody is "prevented" from voting because they don't have a driver's license or a car. One simply has to register to vote, not much more to do than when getting a license for one's dog. That's too much to ask ?

Jongone

It's the same in my state, too. You can file a provisional ballot if you don't have required ID, however, if you present an ID that's suspected to be false or invalid, then you can't get a provisional ballot. So, if a poll worker suspects that a person is using a false ID or that the photo doesn't match the person, then that person won't be issued a provisional ballot.

Provisional ballots require that someone go to the DMV to get the license renewed, replaced, or a new license or ID card - in the case of states like Arizona - any document rejected by a poll worker as being suspect can be photocopied, and mailed, my state via certified mail, and then the vote will be counted. But people usually don't go through the bother because they watch the election results a few hours later, and that's the idea - Voter ID laws are designed to impede voting and turn people away at the polls.

In the case of Arizona, and the documentation that they'll accept, there are a lot of people who can't provide any or a proper combination of the documentation types - the elderly, the poor, students, etc. this was initially a problem for some states, because so many elderly didn't have the required documents. Some states have solved this by including a provision for such cases that a citizen with proper proof of citizenship can vouch for the citizenship of the person without the requisite documentation.

tony-268769

They are not "prevented" from voting...

If they don't have proper documentation in Voter ID states, they are.

One simply has to register to vote,

Well, that's the entire issue here - that you can't just simply register to vote. That's the whole issue, that registered voters get turned away at the polls if they don't have the proper documentation or if a poll worker suspects that the documentation is false. This issue is entirely about already registered voters.

If its ok to require a U.S citizen to have to prove they are a U.S. Citizen, are not mentally incompetent, not a Felon, have not committed domestic abuse, etc, and have to go through a federal background check to exercise their Second Amendment Rights to legally purchase and own a firearm, why shouldn't we require people to prove they are a U.S. citizen to exercise their right to vote?

Simple. If I walk into my county clerks office with only my birth certificate as ID exactly how can they prove it is actually my birth certificate? It could be yours. They can ask me my parents names and where we lived back then. But since that is on the certificate I might have just read that info and memorized it so that would prove nothing. It can't be used to identify me I am no longer 8 lbs 7 oz and 22 inches tall. Nor does either certificate I have contain my footprints or any identifying marks. So exactly how do they know it is actually my birth certificate? Because they have to take my word for it. Just like they have to take my word for it when in my state they ask are you a citizen and I say yes. I actually have two birth certificates. One issued two weeks after my birth and another when I needed for some reason I no longer remember. ( it was legal some job thing) The one from the fifties looks old and official. It's a mirco fiche printout. The one from the 1980s looks like it was produced at the same place that makes participant certificates for Little League. When I voted last year the poll workers that checked my license admitted they knew nothing about the security hologram and other security features on our licenses. I asked them "How do you know that license is real?". The young women said "We just assume they all are real." They did not have a handheld black-light there which bouncers and bartenders use to light up the security features. So the poll workers did not know how to tell a fake license or the equipment to spot a fake. So what is the purpose? ID voter laws prove nothing.

Zen:

You are taking my comments out of context. What I am saying is the 2nd amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms. However, the requirements are in order for me to purchase a gun I must show proper ID. The question is what is considered "proper ID".

If my right to vote states the proper ID is a signed statement then what is being argued is that is a valid form of ID. If that is the case then the same signed statement should be a valid form of ID as well.

We can't (or, rather, shouldn't) have the Supreme Court that says a signed statement is a valid form if ID in one case and not another. The argument is we need an ID to open a bank account, to get on an airplane, AND to purchase a gun so if that is what is considered an appropriate ID then it should be considered the appropriate ID for all legal business including voting.

ID voter laws prove nothing.

Be that a it may voter ID laws were upheld as Constitutional by The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in 2008.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.UUio6xyTiXl

We can't (or, rather, shouldn't) have the Supreme Court that says a signed statement is a valid form if ID in one case and not another.

That's your conclusion, and it's based on the premise that rights are absolute and therefore equivalent. Rights are not absolute, they are conditional. The premise is false.

I understand what you're saying - I can read. My comment demonstrated that the argument itself is false, because the premise is false.

And, again, besides the demonstrated structural fallacy, you should easily recognize that the argument is unsound simply and easily because - your argument is that the conditions of these two rights are equivalent because all rights are absolute, and thus equivalent. If rights are conditional, then they are not absolute, and therefore, not conditional equivalents. An absolute right is unconditional. So,you're making an argument about the conditions of rights, based on the premise that rights are unconditional.

BTW - so you support these gun control laws then?

Be that a it may voter ID laws were upheld as Constitutional by The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in 2008.

The SCOTUS also ruled "A black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect." The SCOTUS also rule abortion legal in Roe vs Wade. So your point is?

That's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, whose ruling is being revisited by the court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Stevens is gone and Kennedy is showing skepticism toward the argument that Arizona has been forced to make by being outmaneuvered in the lower courts.

Pointing to Crawford v. Marion County Election Board as a trump in a sorta-kinda debate about Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is argumentum ad curriculum, as this is the issue in question in the first place.

Fox flash-troll storm! Fox flash-troll storm!

David, in your example from Chicago, voter ID could not have prevented a poll worker from filling out multiple ballots. If you want laws like this, you will have to come up with a more compelling argument and find a problem they will fix.

as this is the issue in question in the first place.

I was unaware that in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board the issue at hand was the utilization of box #6 on the Federal voter registration form.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-71.pdf

I'm not sure exactly what you think Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is about or what it's implications are regarding Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

The issue in 'Arizona' is that prop 200 requires proof of citizenship. The Tribal Councils' argument is that it is a redundancy of and a state supercession of federal law (the Motor-Voter Act.),

In Crawford, the court ruled that requiring photo ID was not an undue burden in the specific case of Indiana because Indiana state photo IDs were free (an Indiana statute created specifically for this legal argument, BTW). And Indiana provided provisional ballots for those that didn't have IDs at the polls, giving them 10 days to haul their asses down to the DMV and send off the proof of their new ID to the state, which would then count their vote in an election that is already over. The arguments that provisional ballots did not counter undue burden and that they were discriminatory failed in that case.

Arizona, however, patterned prop 200 after SEA483, including measures to relieve undue burden, such as the provisional ballots. This case revisits the issues of Crawford, whose decision regarding undue burden was very specific to Indiana, which really had it's ducks in a row legislatively to ensure the law would stand constitutional challenges, which required very specific circumstances.

And as with the legal maneuverings Indiana in eliminating the fee for a state ID and its' provisional ballors, Arizona offered the same argument, citing the SEA 438 case. Part of Arizona's argument in the lower courts was that prop 200 is not a supercession of federal law, because it does not place additional undue burden on citizens.That gives revisitation the undue burden question of Crawford, specifically that provisional ballots are an mechanism to relieve any undue burden.

So, one of Arizona's own arguments allows the court to revisit undue burden and the question of whether provisional ballots relieve undue burden. It seems likely, with the absence of Stevens and Kennedy skeptical, that Crawford will be nerfed by narrowing ID requirements to very specific circumstances, and allows the court to alter the courts ruling in SEA 438 that provisional ballots relieve undue burden, which seems to be a generic cure-all for the undue burden issues of Voter ID laws.

So, again, invoking 'Crawford' as a trump in a debate about 'Arizona' is argumentum ad curriculum, as the argument here would be "Arizona, because Crawford", which is part of Arizona's argument, which is in question here. It's the question itself, not the conclusion.

In other words, in an argument that goes "Arizona, because Crawford", where the question IS "Arizona, because Crawford?", your premise is "Arizona, because Crawford". By making that comment invoking Crawford in that way, you make the premise and the conclusion the same.

'Arizona' invokes 'Crawford'. So issues of Crawford are being revisited in Arizona. Stevens is gone and Kennedy is seems skeptical of the state's arguments. If Kennedy flips, both Crawford and Voter D laws get nerfed. That's the situation.

I mistyped - it's SAE 483, as typed originally, not SAE 438, as was typed further down the comment. If you need to search, don't use SAE 438 as the search term.

Zen - if a person doesn't drive, there is nothing preventing that person from going to DMV and getting a driver's license or an state issued ID card. If that person is a student living in another state then they can get an absentee ballot. If that person lives in 2 states they can either choose to be in the state that they registered to vote, during the voting or they can also get an absentee ballot. Also, like I said, if you just moved, you are required by law to get your new license or ID card re-issued from your new state of residence. Nothing is preventing these people from voting but their own laziness. BS excuses.

NVArt, if there is a FEE to get that state issued ID card it fails the Supreme Court decision that outlawed poll taxes. If you are FORCED by the state to PAY ANYTHING in order to exercise your right to vote it is a POLL TAX which is against the law. It is NOT a BS excuse. You don't seem to understand WHY it is illegal to REQUIRE someone to pay to get something allowing them to vote. In addition, when a state puts forth an NRA membership card or gun registration as acceptable ID to vote yet disallows a student ID card FOR AN IN-STATE STUDENT then it begins to show the real purpose of the Voter ID laws as being to LIMIT the access of the polls to only those "right" voters. I had a student ID with my picture on it and was an in-state student. I lived off-campus and lived in the city 365 days a year so I was a RESIDENT by ALL definitions. I didn't have a driver's license because I lived in the city and TOOK THE BUS. I didn't write checks. But the Voter ID laws would have prevented me from voting UNLESS I went to DMV and PAID MONEY to get a DMV ID card - which, again - is in effect A POLL TAX.

1) someone doesn't need to PAY to vote, make any trips to the DMV, collect, photocopy, and mail, a bunch of stuff in order to vote

2) registered voters shouldn't be turned away from the polls because they don't have proper or accepted documentation, especially based on the discretion of a poll worker.

3) poll workers are unqualified to determine if documentation is valid or not so:

A) registered voters can be turned away for technicalities.

B) someone that really does want to commit in-person voter fraud, which is extremely rare, and does have the documentation is allowed to cast a vote. So, it won't stop what it's ostensibly supposed to stop, it just discourages or prevents registered voters from voting.

Voter ID laws exist to discourage and prevent registered US citizens from voting, not to "prevent in-person voter fraud". That argument is disingenuous - a BS excuse - as it were.

If we're going to have required documentation, I think it should a pilot's license or a PhD or the equivalent, and if someone can't produce those at the polls, they're just lazy.

And if we need to prove that we're NOT committing voter fraud via documentation, maybe we need to prove that we're NOT mentally ill by providing a notarized document from a mental health exam, and since mental incompetents can't vote, we should also have to prove that we're NOT mentally incompetent by presenting a notarized document with our Stanford-Binet score. Convicted felons also can't vote, so we would need documentation of our criminal records.

The 9th Circuit in their ruling on Gonzalez v. State of Arizona (08-17094) effectively severed the photo identification requirement from the citizenship to requirement to register to vote in federal elections. Ruling in favor of the former and against (for the reason that you have stated) the latter.

The court's majority concluded in an opinion by Judge Sandra Ikuta that:

We uphold Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polling place, but conclude that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s registration provision as that provision is applied to applicants using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the “Federal Form”) to register to vote in federal elections.

Judge Sandra Ikuta further clarified the photo ID requirement:

In sum, because any payment associated with obtaining the documents required under Proposition 200’s polling place provision is related to the state’s legitimate interest in assessing the eligibility and qualifications of voters, the photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction under Harper, and the burden is minimal under Crawford. As such, the polling place provision does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89891870/9th-Circuit-Ruling-08-17094-Upholding-AZ-Voter-ID-Law

Arizona’s petition to the Supreme Court is to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling on proposition 200 that the state's proof of citizenship requirement to register is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. If the Court up holds the 9th Circuit’s decision it preserves the status quo and does not speak to Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. The Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn the 9th Circuit’s ruling (and it’s own) on the photo identification requirement and that is certainly not what Arizona is petitioning for.

I do agree however that Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote.

Well, right, I didn't intend that a photo ID requirement would be overturned by 'Arizona', but that 'Arizona' would be the case that reeled in Voter ID laws - nerfing 'Crawford'. The decision in Crawford says that Indiana's photo ID requirement satisfies 'no undue burden' because the state dropped the fee for ID cards (as well as the mechanic of provisional ballots).

Because it's the state's appeal, the issue to the court is the state's objection to the 9th Circuit's ruling - that prop 200 is a parallel, not a supersession of motor-voter.

Talk about walking a fine line - it's a difficult, in this case impossible, argument to make, because even as conservative as the majority five are, they are still, ostensibly constructivists - they aren't going to jump the shark on the Supremacy Clause. But here you have the state of Arizona, basically saying 'Phuck the Phed', with this law, both in content and mechanics, and now the AG has to go in front of the Supremes and argue that it's not a supersession, it's a parallel.

The court can 1) uphold the 9th Circuit's ruling, and the proof of citizenship component is void, or 2) it can overturn the ruling and uphold the law, or 3) overturn the ruling and void the law.

The ruling of the 9th Circuit regarding that the fee for a photo ID is not an undue burden is not the court's ruling in Crawford. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in that case specifically because of the legislative concessions of Indiana to eliminate the fee and the provisional ballot mechanic.

That's not lost on the liberal justices, and this is reflected in some of the comments of Sotomayor, Breyer, and especially Kagan, with the 'jumping through hoops' comment.

That Arizona had to make THIS argument, which is mechanical, so effects the whole law, and not just the proof of citizenship component, means that the issue is pragmatic and not ideological. And so, with this, and Kennedy's comments, it seems more likely that Kennedy will swing in this case.

If that happens, I think it's likely that the entire law will be scrapped, and with it the 9th Circuit's ruling regarding photo ID.

There's no certainty that any of this will happen. Kennedy could stick with the conservatives with this, although since it's a mechanical issue, I don't know if it would even be a 5-4 split.

The issue with Crawford is that the states as well as some courts, do not understand the ruling or have broadened it of their own accord. The liberals on the court don't like Crawford, of course, and they certainly don't like lower courts expanding a SCOTUS ruling. They'd like nothing more that to nerf it to as restricitve as it's original intent, which was that the states could require photo ID, if it did not create an undue burden. Indiana met that, which is why you have the justice with the most liberal voting pattern on the court writing the majority opinion.

So, they want a case to define Crawford. 'Crawford' is the holding for 'Arizona', which means that Crawford is the precedent for Arizona, and that Crawford is being revisited via Arizona. There's a reason that the liberal justices wanted to hear this case, and that interest wasn't to overturn a circuit court decision that would uphold proof of citizenship. And for that reason, I think that if Kennedy swings to them, then the entire law will be struck, voiding the Circuit Court's ruling, with language in the majority opinion regarding 'undue burden'.

In other words, they won't 'overturn' Crawford - they can't until somebody dies - they will nerf it by defining it in cases where it is the holding. Arizona gives them this opportunity. This, of course, hinges on Kennedy.

-

But here you have the state of Arizona, basically saying 'Phuck the Phed', with this law, both in content and mechanics, and now the AG has to go in front of the Supremes and argue that it's not a supersession, it's a parallel.

It would appear in their ruling that the 9th Circuit has put to rest any 14th amendment issues. If the Supreme Court did not agree that Arizona was likely to prevail in this aspect, if they believed that Arizona was likely to fail on this point, they would have granted an injunction blocking the voter ID portion of prop 200 from going into effect. They have not. Note Arizona’s voter ID law is not a strict photo ID requirement as is Indiana's.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/Prop_200/poll_identification.htm

In my opinion trying to determine what the Court will do from oral arguments is a fool’s errand. I am not a lawyer nor will I take the time to read all of the case law associated with this issue. As such my understanding is incomplete and I will therefore defer to the judgment of the Court. If the Court chooses to take up the voter ID portion of prop 200 that is their prerogative. Until then it seems clear that the issue of voter ID, including strict photo ID, with respect to equal protection has been asked and answered. Like it or not, for now, voter ID is the “law of the land”.

OK - to be clear, what you've from my comment isn't in the context of the photo ID component. What I was saying here was regarding the argument that the AG has to make. Arizona made this law in the general spirit of what the everyday-average conservatives' idea of States' Rights - this idea that a state has the right to supersede federal law. Arizona has a history of this going back 25 years of this kind of stuff.

But the assumption that just because the majority 5 are 'conservative' does not necessarily mean that they hold the same position regarding the Supremacy Clause. That's the issue for all the justices in their questioning. And you can see that the AG is put in this position of walking the fine line of this argument in trying to make the case that the law is a parallel. It's an awkward position, and a tough argument to make. You can see how carefully he is to argue against supersession or any question that begs supersession.

Scalia seemed to give him some refuge by giving him a semantic argument with this 'may/shall' distinction in the language of the form, which he needed because Scalia was lobbing him softballs and he wouldn't take those hints, so Scalia just made the argument for him.

Regarding if they believed that Arizona was likely to fail on this point, they would have granted an injunction blocking the voter ID portion of prop 200 from going into effect.

No, they wouldn't have done that.

Regarding striking the law entirely: the AG's explicit argument to the court cites Crawford as the holding for Arizona. In other words, Crawford allows Arizona to make these requirements. There has been a problem with states and courts broadening Crawford. this law is one of those cases. The AGs argument to the court is based on it's objection to the 9th Circuit ruling, but Arizona's objection to the Circuit court's ruling is not why the court chose to hear the case.

The conservatives, as judicial conservatives, like to leave this stuff to the lower cpurts, unless that court has made a decision that subverts the a clause or holding or a decision in which the court has viewed a clause or a holding too broadly. So, they don't agree to hear cases just to uphold a lower court's ruing, unless they specifically want to uphold with a clarification of a constitutional issue. So, whatever happens, it's not going to be just upholding the Circuit Court's ruling.

The liberal judges want to revisit Crawford. This is why they agreed to hear Arizona, it's holding is Crawford, so the court can define Crawford through Arizona. In other

In other words, the court will speak to the AG's objection in it's opinion, but it's ruling will be broader than just that issue, as you can see from the questioning, the issues reflected by the justices questions and comments were not limited to the AG's objection. You'll notice how much of the argument to the AG was spent on mechanics, and that's indicative that the law could be voided.

You're right, of course, that there's no certainty in the court's decision. But if Kennedy swings, then Crawford is nerfed. States and courts are interpreting Crawford to allow them to place all these requirements on voters, as if Crawford means that any and all requirements carry no undue burden. And that's not what Crawford says. Crawford is the explicit holding in Arizona., and Arizona's argument to the court. It says that these requirements are allowed via Crawford, and explicitly cites Crawford to the court. So, the court is going to nerf Crawford here in this case by defining it more clearly for states/courts. But again, this likely depends on Kennedy.

In other words, you might think that the case is explicitly about and limited to Arizona's objection to the 9th Circuit's ruling, but these rulings of the court in such cases are much broader than the question that comes before them. The SCOTUS doesn't hear cases like this unless they want to speak to an issue or have something to say to the lower courts. If they were simply going to uphold the lower court's ruling, they wouldn't have agreed to hear the case.

I will look forward to reading the Courts opinion when it is rendered. Provided that the do not take the opportunity to kick it back to the 9^th Circuit ruling that their judgment regarding preemption of the NVRA by prop 200 was to narrow. I do agree that they did not take up the case simply to affirm the ruling of the lower Court.

The problem with many Voter ID laws that are based on Crawford is that in Crawford the ID requirement was made in such a way that there was no FEE for the state-issued ID. If any state is going to base on Crawford, they MUST do away with all fees associated with obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Until and unless they do this, they can not base on Crawford as it violates the law regarding poll taxes. I would think this is part of the reason that the SCOTUS is hearing ALL of Arizona's law. They need to clarify that the REASON that the photo ID requirement in Crawford fit within the Constitution was the elimination of the fee for the state-issued ID, thus eliminating the poll tax issue and the disparate impact for those who can not afford to pay a fee. I agree with Zen in that if they were going to simply confirm the Circuit Court decision they would not have agreed to hear the case. They are at least investigating all of the issues in the Arizona law and will probably strike down the citizenship issue as well as further define and confine the issue under Crawford.

The point is, it doesn't. That's the law as it currently stands without the onerous requirements Arizona has put on people in an attempt to disenfranchise them.

chitown

"onerous requirements" Seriously?

How about the same to buy firearms? That will never pass.

Deerhunter: it is actually ILLEGAL for the voter registration people to ask for proof of citizenship!!!

It is also illegal for poll workers to ask for proof of citizenship. As long as the ID they present matches the voter registration ... they have to let the person vote. Even if the person cannot speak English and walks in with a Mexican flag wrapped around him and his vehicle has a Mexican license plate --- they have to let him vote.

We are the ONLY major Industrialized country that has voting on the HONOR SYSTEM.

It is virtually impossible to get caught voting illegally. The way it usually happens is they get called for jury duty and claim they are not citizens in order to get out of jury duty and then the authorities know they voted illegally. Either that or they are illegally trying to avoid jury duty and either one is another crime.

You can be sure that La Raza knows how easy it is to register and vote and that it is < virtually > impossible to get caught.

And, you can be sure that La Raza has made sure that EVERY illegal knows it too.

Deerhunter, that is the federal law as it is now, right? The AZ law would add more burdens to voters.

Unlike so many right wingers, people believe in honesty.

And as soon as Arizona proves that they are following existing law and going after anyone who is commiting perjury by falsely certifying that they are eligible to vote, and as soon as they prove the existing law's remedy (going after those committing perjury) is insufficient, then we'll talk about whether a new ID law is required.

Until then, they are as hypocritical as they claim everyone else to be.

Here's your Honsty Sgt. Not just a private citizen commiting voter fraud a poll worker who is supposed to be making sure the voting is above board.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/cincinnati-poll-worker-charged-with-voting-half-dozen-times-in-november/

Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November

She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.

The 58-year-old veteran Cincinnati poll worker, indicted Monday, faces eight counts of voter fraud. Two others, one of whom is a nun, have been charged separately.

fuax news has found what 3 cases of widespread voter fraud in the contry when millions voted. Thats the reason we need voter ID laws. They make no mention that convicted felons cannot vote like the bankers that stole millions then asked for bail out. Oh I forgot the republicants said you can't prosectute job makers. By the way after almost 10 years of tax breaks where are these jobs they are creating, thats right they are overseas because they get even more tax breaks for that.!!!

For refreshing this law was challenged but the Inter Tribal Council not by illegal aleins or Democrats

mike

Who hasen't prosecuted the bankers? I believe that would fall under Holders domain.

The probloemn with the right wing sentiment about voter fraud is that there is about one case a year of actual in person voter fraud. BUT and it's a "big but" as my grandmother used to say, there are literally thousands of cases of voter fraud every year involving absentee ballots.

People are simply not going to case in-person fraudulent ballots when there is a high chance thatr they will be caught. The old "cross off the names on a voter role" method is so effective that it has been in use in elections for over 900 years (church synods used it first.)

What voter fraud happens is when, as one example, a husband requests an absentee ballot in his wife's name (probably because he disagrees with her political views) forging her name in the process. He then intercepts the ballot, votes, and sends it in. The reason that hundreds are caught is that some portion of these politically cuckolded wives actually show up to vote only to find that their names have already been marked off because of absentee voting. The FEC has done studies where they examine every ballot in a group for fraud. They think that about 4% of all absentee ballots are fraudulent. At one time it was common in the military for commanders to intercept absentee ballots and fill them out for soldiers to sign so that they wouldn't vote "erroneously." But since absentee votes tend to be heavily Republican, there have been zero efforts to stop absentee voter fraud and the GOP has actually blocked several attempts to do so.

David, because I'm sure no private citizens, or larger groups, on the GOP side has ever committed or been indicted or convicted of voter fraud...

(Apparently, I can't post links yet due to Newsvine limits on new posters, but do a Google search for "republican voter fraud convictions" and you'll find plenty of articles for reference that show how idiotic your point was about an individual being an idiot, no matter which side they vote for.)

We can go back and forth with links about people on either side committing fraud, or having suspicion of it, however the number is so staggeringly small that it's a non-issue, and our laws already are able to sufficiently prosecute these people. The various states imposing "voter ID laws to protect against fraud" are fighting the flame of a match with the entire NYFD without caring about who they're drowning.

@DavidNoah,

One instance does not a crisis make.

Hey Mike, guess who bailed out the banks, thats right it was your buddy Obama, and he did it with your money. Now do you want to talk about the five other companies he bailed out at about 500 million a pop and then they moved to China along with our money and our jobs. Again the sad part about this is that unless you read Fox News ,you wont ever hear about it, that should piss off everyone ,even you libbies.

Hey Mike, guess who bailed out the banks, that's right it was your buddy Obama, and he did it with your money. Now do you want to talk about the five other companies he bailed out at about 500 million a pop and then they moved to China along with our money and our jobs. Again the sad part about this is that unless you read Fox News ,you wont ever hear about it, that should piss off everyone ,even you Libbie's.

Joe, have you ever considered that the only reason that you only hear a lot of stories on Fox News is because other news sources actually hold to journalistic principles of actually telling the truth? Or at least not outright lying?

Strangely, when Fox reports one thing, and a half dozen news sources all report it another way, I tend to be inclined to lean toward the side of the non-Fox, partly because Fox has a history of coming up with bull@!$%# and partly because multiple sources reporting the same thing are probably actually on to something instead of writing fiction.

joe, it was BUSH. It happened in 2008. BEFORE the election, even. Get your facts straight. The bailouts were negotiated and the fund set up before the 2008 elections. Yes, there were banks bailed out AFTER January 20, 2009 ... but they were bailed out under the SAME PROGRAM that Bush set up in 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/

(Apparently, I can't post links yet due to Newsvine limits on new posters, but do a Google search for "republican voter fraud convictions" and you'll find plenty of articles for reference that show how idiotic your point was about an individual being an idiot, no matter which side they vote for.)

When did I ever suggest someon was an idiot or even used the term "idiot"?

I do appreciate you admitting that voter fraud occurs. Isn't that the point I was trying to make?

Just because you believe in "Honesty" doesn't mean people are going to be honest or that you can expect others to be honest.

I can't believe that billions of words will be written on this topic...having to produce valid identification when registering to vote, or when voting.

Horror...Horror...Horror.

Just because one or two instances of voter fraud are found, doesn't mean there isn't a whole lot more going on. If this law prevents even one person from commiting voter fraud then it will have served it's purpose.

NV...

In my town of 9200 people, I have seen town budgets approved by as little as a single vote. "One vote" IS very important.

End voter fraud, and stupidity, deport conservatives. They hate America anyway.

NVArt

Just because one or two instances of voter fraud are found, doesn't mean there isn't a whole lot more going on.

And it doesn't mean that there IS a whole lot more going on. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"I don't have any evidence, but since it's rare, that must mean that it's not rare."

"The fact that we have no evidence that it doesn't exist, that means that it DOES exist, and it must be STOPPED !!!!"

Well isn't that what some people want in the instance of universal background checks? "Someone used a gun to commit a crime so therefore all gun owners are criminals." You can't have it both ways. I haven't heard of any major investigations into voter fraud because no one wants to take the time to run down every voter. Besides without a definitive way of checking the person's eligibility to vote how do we know either way?

If you do not have a mechanism to detect it is there any wonder that you find so little of it? Having found so little of it there is no good reason to implement a mechanism to detect it. I wonder how well the honor system would work with speeding tickets.

JUSTICE BREYER: What use are you making of that?

MR. HORNE: Well, Your Honor, we are making use of it and I just mentioned -­

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, I know -- I'm sure you are and then my question is how?

MR. HORNE: By prosecuting -- there have been ten prosecutions in one year alone of people who swore falsely. Out of the hundreds that were caught swearing falsely, ten in fact were prosecuted.

JUSTICE BREYER: By?

MR. HORNE: But that -- but that is not a -­ that is not a sufficient use or that is not a sufficient measure of determining eligibility, because literally hundreds have been caught swearing jury -- jury commissioner forms swearing they are not citizens after they had already registered to vote. Other people were caught in their applications to citizenship when they checked and found that they had previously registered to vote and voted.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-71.pdf

Note: All of the above were prosecuted for swearing falsely not for voter fraud. Is it reasonable to conclude that because none were found guilty of voter fraud that fraud was not committed?

The argument is argumentum ad ignoratiam.

If you guys really want to double-down against a basic logical fallacy - have at it.

Joe66: it IS illegal to ask for proof of citizenship from someone trying to register to vote using the Federal form. If they use the STATE form it is legal.

Wonder why all the hispanic people use the Federal form. hmmmm.

Pro-illegal people try to claim that almost no one has been caught.

Well --- since it is ILLEGAL to catch illegal voters the number of illegal voters discovered is going to be very small.

Arizona couldn't function without federal money.

They might get alone a lot better.

thats right shellie..but the ones in office say its bad

Elvis, Do you live in Arizona? Didn't think so. Mind your own business!

lived there 2 years..Phoenix..I live in Texas...the same kind of boat

Arizona is a beautiful state. Great roads and freeways, rivers, lakes, mountains, and forests. Great weather if you ride a motorcycle, which is why I live here. Oh and there is a certain corner in Winslow Arizona.

That being said, our Governor and Legislature are batchit crazy. When it comes to bucking the Federal System money is no object. When it comes to supporting education, not so much, which is why I refer to it as Crazyzona.

you have that right

I also lived in the Phoenix area from 1991-99 and they were batsh!t crazy back then. I'm so grateful to be back in my home state of New York. One of the things I don't remember them asking about when voting in AZ was for ID. I always vote no matter where I live. When I returned to New York, I turned in my AZ drivers license and filled out the voter registration form that was included in the forms to get a NY drivers license. This was all done at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles office. When I vote in NY, I have never been asked for ID. I give my name at the polling place, it is looked up in the voter registration books and then I am required to sign my name. If my signature didn't match, I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed to vote. What is so hard about that? I'll even answer that for you.....NOTHING unless you are a republicant trying to make sure I can't vote. A$$holes!!!

That's right Don't Care, New York is much better. They just try and tell people how much soda they can drink, and now they want stores to cover up their cigarettes ,might make people want to smoke. Whats next potato chips and beer ? If this is your idea of being sane, you need to stay in New Your, we don't need you voting anywhere south of the Mason Dixie Line.

Don't Care is right where he or she belongs. Please stay there.

joe...

Maybe the Mayor of New York can turn his attention to the number of babies that are born to teenage high school dropouts ! A bit more important that how large of a soda they can drink.

All the red states are welfare states and they could not operate without the Blue States driving the economy and paying taxes so the conservatives, aka, the takers, could live off the government teet.

RJ..I have never in my life seen an illigal in line at a voting booth...have you??

Elvis - How did you know that? Did YOU check their IDs? Stupid post.

all i can say is your a dumb azz

even at wall mart....i see Russians standing in front of wall mart to be pick up..yes i can see ..white they are but you can tell

elvis payne

RJ..I have never in my life seen an illigal in line at a voting booth...have you??

If that is the case why do you have such a problem with requiring proof of citizenship to vote?

So how do we know your not some illegal foreigner and so imigrant who's mamma came here and gave birth to you so to make you legal. The only "real Americans" are the native tribes of this land that includes those of Mexican decent since Arizona, New Mexico, California, and yes Texas. all were part of Mexico!!

@mike --- do you mean like the Republican governors of North Carolina and Louisiana who were "anchor babies" for their parents?

BTW# it is still against the law for an American-Indian to vote in Arizona and in many parts of the country, such as North and South Dakota, it is not unusual to see signs in bars that say" Injun, don;t let the sun set on your ass in this town."

If some people are so hot to require an ID for voting they should set up a program to go from door-to-door all over the country to make certain that every one who is eligible has an ID. If that requires taking them to a DMV or other office and paying for the ID then that is what they should do. And anyone who tries to prevent an eligible person from getting an ID for voting should to guilty of a felony and do hard prison time. Which, of course, would make such person ineligible to vote.

They care less about voting or they might be back home working and voting there.,,,but its to easy here to live and not have to work with all the freebies give to them. I doubt very seriously you could make one vote here....they don't like responsibility I guess.

illegals are not lazy

elvis payne

I'm not sure that I can tell by looking at them. Do they wear bigger Sombreros or something? Does a non citizen look different than a citizen?

Didn't say they were lazy... they smart elvis... you and I feed most of them furnish them with healthcare with our tax money.Now whos the smartest us or them?

joe do you know Romney had them cutting his yard...for little money

deer...yes i know an illegal Mexican from an American Mexican yes i do dumb azz

Elvis, thats racist! How can you tell someone is illegal just by looking at them?

I live in Texas....when you get a litte older you just might understand

Although I dissagree with most of what Elvis has said. You can usually tell which ones are wetback's by looking at them.

Bigot!!

Liberal!!

thats correct

And the award for the most laughable post of the day goes to....

And do Republicans understand that Ronnie Reagan started this mess by giving unconditional amnesty to three million illegal immigrants in 1986 and about eight million were given a head start to citizenship over people waiting in line for green cards. This was a part of the "new" GOP strategy to win the hearts and minds of Latinos.

But it backfired. Ronnie RayGun and Ed Meese made several offensive statements about Latinos that more than cancelled out the benefit to Republicans. Also the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 was administered in such a way that it pissed off more Latinois than it pleased.

The result of Reagan's misstep was that millions of illegals streamed into the country, from all corners of the world and all expecting that the next Republican President would give them amnesty. Fpr a time they became sort of a "forgotten" minority and the former illegals who could not vote didn't vote at all. But then Latinos, at first empowered by Spanish-speaking AM radio stations and then FM and then TV and now a huge number of cable channels have helped them to organize and bloc vote.

But the GOP was never able to "man up" after that and own the anmesty, so Latinos drifted away. And then the Tea Party started with their crap and now virtually all Latinos hate the GOP so badly that they would vote for a yellow dog if he was a Democrat.

Now the GOP wants to "own" immigration reform again and do another Reagan-style amnesty and give green cards to anyone who speaks Spanish. It will simply backfire again since Latinos are not on the GOP list of hated groups for the average Republican voter. Just read the posts on here to see how badly the GOP is screwing this up.

ditto

they do bring an id to vote but that's not good enough

The article is about REGISTERING to vote.

Elvis - Canadians, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, etc. are all Americans, but they aren't US citizens and don't have the right to vote in the US.

once they raise there right hand yes they do

If a Mexican can be an AMERICAN, can an AMERICAN be a Mexican?????

To all you morons that are US-centric, all the countries that I mentioned are in the Americas and their citizens are considered Americans. But not all Americans are US citizens, and not all Americans can vote in the United States of America.

Ian, I believe you are confusing the Dems with the Repubs. It is the Dems that hate American democracy.

I say "American democracy" because the USA is NOT a democracy, we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Are you smart enough know the difference?

Actually sonmanvb, the United States is a (federal) constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The individual states are much closer to pure democracies in that state officials are elected directly by popular pluralities.

In any case, the United States and the so-called "Western Democracies" are founded upon democratic principles. Why else would you suppose you don't hear the phrase "Western Republics"?

It is instructive that you take issue with the "democracy" part of #12. Perhaps, that is because you are one of those who has no use for it (democracy). But, please, feel free to express your true feelings for democracy.

BTW---On Nov. 5, 2012, you commented:

Quote......allup & Rasmussen: Romney 49% Obama 48%......EndQuote

.....and:

Quote........Great quote from President Romney. The Life of Julia. . . In this election, you have 2 choices with your vote: Obama = A Vote for Revenge OR Romney = A vote for Love of Country.....EndQuote

Wow!....You were one of those completely deluded right until election day. You were even already calling (very soon to be loser) Romney, "President". No doubt, you chalked Romney's "shocking" loss up to "voter fraud". It is such poetic justice that Hispanics played a significant role in Romney's defeat.

Say THANK YOU dumbocrats!

Thank you republicant's !!

CRB, you got that right.

CRB: of course no one who had entered the country illegally or used a fraudulent / stolen Social Security number to work and stole someone's ID would EVER think of lying in order to vote for a politician who says he will put through laws allowing him to stay here legally.

La Raza makes sure every illegal knows voting is on the HONOR SYSTEM here and that it is even against the law for the voter registration people to ask them for proof of citizenship.

Why would they want to vote? All the pro-illegal people ask. The pro-illegals declare over and over that invading aliens have no interest in voting. Of course they don't ... why would they want to vote for someone who says he will help them?

I see no reason to buy a fur coat if I live in Hawaii.

I agree.......why do we want valid elections........let people vote as often as possible and let all illegals, tourist, foreignh students, felons and anybody else world wide also vote........whats the problem.....elections just aren't for citizens.....they are for everybody.

Other than felons, tell me why any of those people would even want to vote and risk running afoul of the law to do so ?

And felons are allowed to vote in some states.

Hank, I presume you are being sarcastic in asking why they would want to vote for politicians who will push for laws to allow them to stay and be legal.

I'm sure you know that it is ILLEGAL for voter registration workers to ask for proof of citizenship. They have to take the persons word for it.

La Raza knows that it is virtually impossible to get caught because it is ILLEGAL for anyone to even TRY to catch them, and they make sure that every illegal alien knows it too.

@ Sunmanvb - I see no reason you should be allowed to walk and chew gun at the same time....BTW did you fall down and hit your head again!!!? I thought the Doctor told you not to stand up without putting your helmet on. What are you hiding since you don't want to show proof of citizenship?

@ Byron - No we'll just let your posts do that for us!!!!

In this day and age violence........only a country of idiots would allow people to purchase deadly weapons without universal background checks..........or should I say a country of wing gun nuts.

.....citizenship is a question on that form.....as it should be!!!!

only a country of idiots would allow people to vote without proof of citizenshiup in their countries most important elections

America is the only country that does not check for voter id. Even Mexico has voter id's!

Talk about being as " dumb as a bag of rocks", every single post you have made shows us that libtards are STUPID and uneducated.

@ Salsa - We have 11 Million illegals in this country right now....doesn't sound like we are deporting anyone to me.

Exactly HOW does requiring someone to prove their citzenship in order to register to vote limit those who are legally allowed to vote?

All US citizens have a SSN. All US citizens can have a passport if they want one. Just about all US citizens born since WWII have records of their birth available. All income-earning US citizens are supposed to file tax return documents annually. Anyone who went to public school in the US has all sorts of records about them.

With such a wide variety of evidence available to choose from and combine it would seem to be rather trivial to prove one's citizenship when registering to vote.

The purpose of the law is prevent only non-citizens from voting illegally. If I need to go through a background check in order to exercise my constitutional right to purchase a firearm then why should it be any different for a person to be required to prove their citizenship as part of the registration process to exercise their constitutional right to vote?

Show those facts please. I am talking about FACTS, not Dumbocrap talking points

@ Had Enough - Man you hit the nail on the head!!!! Dems don't want any regulations that will take away their voter fraud advantage. Precisely why they want 11 Million Illegals to become citizens = 11 Million more Dumbocratic voters!!!!

If you're talking about photo ID then yep, , you're right.

Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee all had photo ID requirements.

Of course, they wouldn't have voted republican anyway, right ?

Brain Dead Bob - Seriously!!!? Why are you Libs so opposed to proof of citizenship to register to vote??? Oh and by the way they do prosecute people for voting more than once....3 people in Hamilton County Ohio (Cincinnati) have been indicted for voting more than once in the last election....one Dumbocrat voted 6 times and faces 12 years in prison....She should get every second of that sentence.

Having to get off work to vote has nothing to do with democratic turn out.

duh....ever heard of poll tax?? Democrats are usually hourly workers...

Tim - The 24th Amendment to the Constitution outlaws any poll tax in any Federal election.

Or people pissed off enough to vote twice or 6 times like a woman here in Ohio. Plain and simple we all should have to provide photo ID (State or Government issued) to vote. Every time I vote I have to show my driver's license, what is the big deal. The Dumbs don't want any voting regulations that would eliminate voter fraud (illegals, deceased voting) because they get 90+% of those votes. Why do you think they are pushing for allowing the 11 MILLION illegal immigrants a path to citizenship....? Because that is another 11 Million Democratic voters.....not to mention another 11 Million people/families living on some form of government assistance.

It is the liberals that create most of the taxes so for once why don't they do something right and allow a free voting card to everyone instead of charging a tax on everything.

Funny how you Libtards want to quote the constitution on this subject but totally ignore it on the 2nd amendment!!! Hypocrites!!!!

For the purposes of box #6 on the Federal voter registration form in regards to Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement in proposition 200 all that is required is: a SS#, an Arizona driver's license # or State ID #, you can write down a naturalization number, you can also write down an Indian tribal identification number. If you have any of those then not further documentation is required.