High Court snuffs Arizona voter-ID law

June 17, 2013

voter IDAn Arizona voter-approved law requiring people desiring to vote t0 prove they are U.S. citizens was struck down Monday morning by the U.S. Supreme Court. (The Blaze)

The so-called voter-ID law in Arizona was the biggest test to date of the constitutionality of a blizzard of voting rules initiated by Republican-dominated state legislatures across the nation.

Justices voted 7-1 to overrule state mandates requiring citizenship  identification in order to use a federal “motor voter” application form.

Justice Antonia Scalia noted for the court’s majority that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.”

The ruling has broad implications for Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee, which have similar laws, and 12 other states where lawmakers are considering ID requirements for voters.



  1. Rambunctious says:

    The Dems want more voters to win elections…the GOP wants monetary contributions from corporations and the people want…well it just don’t matter what the people want now does it.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. r0y says:

    Here is a SIMPLE law that the NATIONAL voter registration FORM (part of the ACT) forgot all about:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    That’s it. Simple, no? So what happens when the Federal Supreme Court simply does not follow the supreme law of the land? We just sit back, being happy we’re not called names like racist, or tea baggers, or whatever? Really? Is this where you want the government to go? Because they will, and it will get a LOT worse. We’re practically there now, if you’ve been paying any attention to the mechanisms that have worked their way into existence in the last 15 years.

    (6) 16 Total Votes - 11 up - 5 down
    • Theo P. Neustic says:

      Its not really going to matter as soon as the leftists and the RINO’s get the immigration amnesty law signed. There will no longer be even the illusion of two parties in this country.

      (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down
      • r0y says:

        My personal conspiracy theory on this is: these past few years, the radical left has been so emboldened as to “take off their masks” – I think (going along your point) that the RINO’s and “oligarchs” are going to feel emboldened as well. Taking off their masks to reveal that there really is no difference, and “differences” were all used as part of the “show” – and we bought it. Hook, line and sTinker.

        So, yeah, we’ll destroy the country as Rome was destroyed (over-taxation, unbridled immigration, over-extension of military/police forces).

        I said it was my personal conspiracy theory; I hope I am wrong, but Marco Rubio seems to be a sign I may not be.

        (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
  3. godislanguage says:

    citizens are names not numbers…

    SCOTUS +1

    (-9) 13 Total Votes - 2 up - 11 down
    • r0y says:

      So, by Arizona asking people to show their NAME on a legal document prior to being allowed to control government is not legal? What?

      (9) 13 Total Votes - 11 up - 2 down
  4. fat chance says:

    I show id for cigarettes,alcohol, cash a check, get on a plane,when i use a credit card and i’m sure a number of other things but not for voting…makes sense to me

    (17) 35 Total Votes - 26 up - 9 down
    • godislanguage says:

      It’s my understanding and philisophical belief that its fundamental to a free and democratic society.

      When a government requires a level of credentials as being proposed is just another rung in the climb towards a totalitarian, fascist state.

      It’s a slippery slope to finger prints, retna scans, dna swabs, or what the Germans used in the 1930’s & 40’s…a tatoo.

      Keep it Simple Sir….leave your mark at the poles and your xenophobias at home.

      (-21) 41 Total Votes - 10 up - 31 down
      • fat chance says:

        Is that what you got out of my comment that i’m somebody who hates forigners? That’s quite a leap. How about i’m somebody who thinks only legal american citizen should be able to vote…..That is what the article is about. You are really a tool

        (22) 34 Total Votes - 28 up - 6 down
        • godislanguage says:

          No you’re missing a fundamental of a free democratic society.

          You sited activities and products that have an impact a) public safety b) commerce, which have a different level of risk to society than a simple VOTE. You make a falacious arguement. If A,B,C,D,E,X are required in a free society then V is also required in a free society.

          I never said you hate foreigners…but if you feel the need for society to have VOTER ID cards then you need to understand that it’s a FASCIST political position!

          the KISS statement is directed at all who favor the Arizona style “voter ID” laws. It’s relatively common rhetorical device. Sir was polite, but Stupid is used as well.

          ….as far as me being a tool…hardly, but if it makes you feel better name calling, you’ve proven my point.

          (-8) 22 Total Votes - 7 up - 15 down
          • fat chance says:

            Your right about the tool part…should not have said that. It’s ok to have different opinions.

            (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down
          • abigchocoholic says:

            I never said you hate foreigners…but if you feel the need for society to have VOTER ID cards then you need to understand that it’s a FASCIST political position!
            The Arizona law merely said that if you mail in the Federal voter form, you have to include some form of ID proving you are a citizen. That could be your driver’s license, state ID card, birth certificate, Indian roll, just something beyond signing your name.

            Hardly fascist any more than making you show ID at the liquor store over your statement or signature that you are 21 is fascist.

            If anything, the fact that our elected representatives so readily confer power on our Federal Government pre-empting our states’ authority is the fascist trend.

            (-1) 11 Total Votes - 5 up - 6 down
            • r0y says:

              Well said. It really is a States’ Rights issue, and the Federal Government is over-reaching. But it has been so long since anything remotely Constitutional was taught, discussed, or highlighted in this country, that most people probably think the Federal Government has more power than the States. They’d be wrong, but our reality around us does show differently. Sadly.

              (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  5. abigchocoholic says:

    that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.”
    What’s the federal law that pre-empted the Arizona law? Anyone know? Seems to me that would be key before we start bashing.

    (0) 8 Total Votes - 4 up - 4 down
    • choprzrul says:

      The law is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The act, as passed, reads in part:

      The purposes of this subchapter are –

      (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

      (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;

      (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

      (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

      It would seem that Arizona was simply attempting to make sure that (3) above was implemented.

      As is the case here, I am curious how this entire process reconciles against the 10th Amendment’s language “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Can someone show me where exactly in the Constitution it is enumerated that the federal government controls state election policy ?


      (6) 8 Total Votes - 7 up - 1 down
      • r0y says:

        Not to be superseded by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I suppose? Wow, do we really take it when they dish it out.

        Of course it should be ILLEGAL to ask someone to prove their a citizen prior to voting! Why, that’s just a WILDLY RIDICULOUS act. We should call them anti-politically-correct names like racist, homophobe, and whatever else will get mindless sheep to go along with government stupidity.

        (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
  6. Mr. Holly says:

    So much for the people by the people!

    (12) 32 Total Votes - 22 up - 10 down
    • Ted Slanders says:

      Mr. Holly,

      So much for the Republican agenda by the Republican agenda!

      (-4) 36 Total Votes - 16 up - 20 down
      • abigchocoholic says:

        Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court. Other states have already done so, Scalia said.
        Here we go. It’s a simple case of the Federal government already having taken over in this area. It’s called Federal pre-emption. And in case you don’t understand laws, this would be all of your state elected representatives in the house and senate voting that the Federal government do this–so it was the people by the people.

        Furthermore, it appears that the majority ruling simply said ask the Federal govt. to include it on Arizona’s state specific requirement rather than just assuming Arizona can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And, undoubtedly, Arizona lawmakers were already advised that the Feds had preempted state rights in this area before they approved their law. So bottom line, it looks like a case of negligence out of Arizona.

        (-6) 14 Total Votes - 4 up - 10 down
      • Theo P. Neustic says:

        You’re right about that, the Democratic party agenda is trumping the Constitution more as each day passes.

        (2) 8 Total Votes - 5 up - 3 down
        • r0y says:

          While it’s super easy to find a plethora of evidence supporting this, the Republican party is just as guilty (see my personal conspiracy theory above). I don’t think it would be any different if a Republican was in control – we just would actually see/hear about it more.

          Hell, it took a swift kick in the head for the media to even make a grunting sound at what’s going on, simply because of how far they have sold everyone (especially their souls) out.

          Maybe what few “evil tea baggers” that snuck into politics can so *something* or *anything* to stop this. I expect a revolt within the Republican party – the democrat party is beyond lost at this point, so no hope at all there. And yes, it sucks to “hope” on the Republicans, but what other choice is there? Hell, most people are not only unaware of what is transpiring around them, but likely they do not even care.

          I think I’ll re-watch Idiocracy one more time.

          (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down

Comments are closed.