The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today ruled against Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting.
[Arizona, Et Al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Et Al.; No. 12-71; Decided June 17th, 2013; Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS); Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]
In so ruling, the Court held that the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) — or the “motor voter” act — trumps an Arizona law that “requires voter-registration officials to ‘reject’ any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.”
While the Court notes that Arizona has a right to decide who votes in state elections there, they are able to request changes to the federal registration form, and then challenge the federal government if it fails to incorporate those changes. The Court does not rule on the merits of such a lawsuit by Arizona.
The vote was 7 to 2.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, joined by John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Anthony Kennedy joined in part, and wrote a concurrence. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each wrote dissents.
Citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal registration form requires people to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. States can use their own forms, but they must be equivalent to the federal form.
The Arizona law, known as Proposition 200 and adopted by Arizona voters in 2004, went further than the federal form by requiring applicants to provide proof of citizenship. Arizona has used the law to reject 30,000 voter applications, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Challengers to the law argued that it put an extra burden on naturalized citizens. Using a naturalization document as proof would require an applicant to register in person, as opposed to through the mail, because federal law prohibits copying the document.
A federal appeals court said that Arizona had gone too far and essentially rejected the federal form. Arizona said it was not a rejection of the federal form any more than asking for ID at an airport is a rejection of a plane ticket.
The Supreme Court ruling pointed out that Arizona still has an option: It can ask the federal government to include state-specific instructions on the federal form, and go to court if the government says no.
Three other states — Alabama, Georgia and Kansas — have laws almost identical to Arizona’s and joined it in urging the court to uphold the additional requirement for proof of citizenship.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
[www.washingtonpost.com/06-17-2013; www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/No. 12-71/06-17-2013; www.scotusblog.com/06=17-2013; usnews.nbcnews/news/06-17-2013; www.nytimes.com/06-17-2013/US/Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law]
No comments:
Post a Comment