SCOTUS Rules On Voter ID
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that the National Voter Registration ActYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that the National Voter Registration ActYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
46 comments
And this decision’s applicability to South Carolina’s “Voter ID” law would be . . . ?
SC’s law was cleared by the U.S. District Court last year and is in effect now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-usa-campaign-south-carolina-idUSBRE89916820121010
No applicability in SC as far as I can tell b/c AG Wilson said the state would take a “broad view” of excuses for not having an ID. Looks like they weren’t taking a “broad view” in AZ.
I believe Arizona’s law was for proof of citizenship, ours is for proof of identity.
Mandated ID’s go along with the government agenda to brand its tax cattle, so I suspect it will make strange bedfellows in lobbying, court and general vote getting.
I defer to Ms. Lazenby’s answer to “GreenvilleLwyr” – and his point – above.
And this decision’s applicability to South Carolina’s “Voter ID” law would be . . . ?
SC’s law was cleared by the U.S. District Court last year and is in effect now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-usa-campaign-south-carolina-idUSBRE89916820121010
No applicability in SC as far as I can tell b/c AG Wilson said the state would take a “broad view” of excuses for not having an ID. Looks like they weren’t taking a “broad view” in AZ.
I believe Arizona’s law was for proof of citizenship, ours is for proof of identity.
Mandated ID’s go along with the government agenda to brand its tax cattle, so I suspect it will make strange bedfellows in lobbying, court and general vote getting.
I defer to Ms. Lazenby’s answer to “GreenvilleLwyr” – and his point – above.
Hahahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
I no need your green card gringo.
Guadalupe’ is going to have our baby here and my vote is as good as yours ese.
Free health care, free food, no payroll taxes(you pay me in cash)…you gringos are bery dumb…but you keep paying da bills and tings will be ok.
Hard to see why the Republicans are looking like the Whig Party of the 21st Century.
Si Senor. Guadalupe’ and mi conozco donde nuestro tortillas son frito y no es la fiesta de mayores puta’s.(GOP)
Ah, so now we have “voter babies” in addition to “terror babies.” Please.
I no need your green card gringo.
Guadalupe’ is going to have our baby here and my vote is as good as yours ese.
Free health care, free food, no payroll taxes(you pay me in cash)…you gringos are bery dumb…but you keep paying da bills and tings will be ok.
Hard to see why the Republicans are looking like the Whig Party of the 21st Century.
Si Senor. Guadalupe’ and mi conozco donde nuestro tortillas son frito y no es la fiesta de mayores puta’s.(GOP)
Ah, so now we have “voter babies” in addition to “terror babies.” Please.
Not to put salt in open wounds but I think the issue here would call into question “nullification” laws. SCOTUS has already ruled 0bamaCare constitutional so wouldn’t any “nullification” law would be struck down?
Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL
Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL
Not to put salt in open wounds but I think the issue here would call into question “nullification” laws. SCOTUS has already ruled 0bamaCare constitutional so wouldn’t any “nullification” law would be struck down?
Hi, EJB.
SCOTUS rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859), which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. After the Civil War, SCOTUS rejected nullification again in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which was about the attempt to perpetuate segregation in schools in Arkansas in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. In Cooper, the Court explicitly held that the states may not nullify federal law. The only way a state may legally challenge a federal law is to file suit in federal court.
ABL
If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind), you’re naïve to the breaking point. Note also that a driver’s license and SSN are NOT indicators of citizenship, as resident aliens may have both.
If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind), you’re naïve to the breaking point. Note also that a driver’s license and SSN are NOT indicators of citizenship, as resident aliens may have both.
If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind)…”
ACORN disbanded three years ago but still lives on as the boogeyman of the Republicans. There’s a poll that showed a majority of Republicans believed that ACORN stole the 2012 election. Too funny.
ACORN simply reorganized itself. It still alive and well.
ps my cat has to have ID
If you believe the “oath” on the generic Federal voter application form means anything to political advocacy organizations (ACORN comes to mind)…”
ACORN disbanded three years ago but still lives on as the boogeyman of the Republicans. There’s a poll that showed a majority of Republicans believed that ACORN stole the 2012 election. Too funny.
Not to quibble, but this issue had nothing to do with Voter ID as passed by the mouth breathers in Columbia. This is about requiring proof of citizenship at the time of registration, a different issue altogether.
Hi, GreenvilleLwyr,
You’re not quibbling; you’re correct. This ruling is about proof of citizenship at the time of registration, not identification at the polling booth. It has nothing to do with SC’s Voter ID law (which was upheld by a U.S District Court) and is not applicable to it. I do not write the headlines, and I’m sorry if the one accompanying this piece has been a source of confusion.
My last sentence, “The decision in this case comes in the midst of heated national battles over both voter identification and immigration laws,” is an effort to put this decision into national context, as I believe increased restrictions on voter registration and increased voter ID requirements are both attempts to decrease voter accessibility and suppress voter turnout when there is no documented fraud that would deem them necessary. The connection to the immigration debate is plain.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
ABL
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of confused by the headline.
Not to quibble, but this issue had nothing to do with Voter ID as passed by the mouth breathers in Columbia. This is about requiring proof of citizenship at the time of registration, a different issue altogether.
Hi, GreenvilleLwyr,
You’re not quibbling; you’re correct. This ruling is about proof of citizenship at the time of registration, not identification at the polling booth. It has nothing to do with SC’s Voter ID law (which was upheld by a U.S District Court) and is not applicable to it. I do not write the headlines, and I’m sorry if the one accompanying this piece has been a source of confusion.
My last sentence, “The decision in this case comes in the midst of heated national battles over both voter identification and immigration laws,” is an effort to put this decision into national context, as I believe increased restrictions on voter registration and increased voter ID requirements are both attempts to decrease voter accessibility and suppress voter turnout when there is no documented fraud that would deem them necessary. The connection to the immigration debate is plain.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
ABL
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of confused by the headline.
Real, actual news. So goddamn refreshing.
Real, actual news. So goddamn refreshing.
In response to this ruling, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has submitted an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act that would “permit states to require proof of citizenship
for registration to vote in elections for federal office.”
Read more here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/scotus-voter-id-ted-cruz-92931.html#ixzz2WaBLEHW7
Anybody shocked?
No, and not surprised it was Cruz who jumped on it.
In response to this ruling, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has submitted an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act that would “permit states to require proof of citizenship
for registration to vote in elections for federal office.”
Read more here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/scotus-voter-id-ted-cruz-92931.html#ixzz2WaBLEHW7
Anybody shocked?
No, and not surprised it was Cruz who jumped on it.
Alito and Thomas. Abbot and Costello. Martin and Lewis. Rowan and Martin. Cheech and Chong. Dumb and Dumber. Moe,Larry ,and Curley.
Pick the one that doesn’t belong?
Alito and Thomas. Abbot and Costello. Martin and Lewis. Rowan and Martin. Cheech and Chong. Dumb and Dumber. Moe,Larry ,and Curley.
Pick the one that doesn’t belong?