Federal court overturns part of Arizona voting ID law

where does everyone stand on this issue. should citizens be required to prove themselves before voting.?
i didn't mind the arizona law requiring id for registration.
what is actually wrong with this concept, why would the supreme court shoot it down?
democrats wanting the hispanic vote, or is there another reason?

cnn article

Federal court overturns part of Arizona voting ID law By the CNN Wire Staff October 27, 2010 1:55 a.m. EDT Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer blasted a court's decision which tossed out part of the state's voter citizenship requirement.
(CNN) -- A federal appeals court has ruled against an Arizona law that requires residents to prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, but upheld a part of the same law that mandates residents to show identification before voting. The decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday was part of an ongoing court battle surrounding Arizona's Proposition 200. Arizona passed the law in 2004, prompting legal challenges. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett blasted the court's decision Tuesday in a joint statement. "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a simple, common sense protection approved by Arizona voters requiring that all individuals provide evidence of U.S. citizenship prior to registering to vote. This decision is an outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections," the statement said. Along with this immigration law, Brewer has also been in ongoing legal battles over Senate Bill 1070, another set of immigration laws that were supposed to start earlier this year. A judge has already blocked parts of that law such as a controversial provision that instructed police to ask people about their immigration status.

Is anyone really surprised................the Dems are hurting and need every vote possible, dead, illegal multiples.....they take 'em all, hell their machines even register 5 votes for Dem candidates on accident , when correcting it accidentallly voting for a Dem when the Republican candidate was chosen I hear.

reply to post by rubbertramp


Not sure if you were pondering, but the Supreme Court did not shoot this down. The U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals Court did.

My stance is that as long as a State's voting rules do not violate the following amendments: 15, 19, 24, and 26; then the Federal Government should remain out of the States business.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the portion of the law requiring that voters present identification before casting their ballot, part of a proposition passed in 2004 amid concerns that illegal immigrants may try to vote in state and federal elections.

Source

What was struck down was the registration portion. The court felt that having a person prove their citizenship at time of registration violated the The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993. Stating that the State's requirement, set in motion by Prop 200 (2004), requiring a person registering to vote using either the State's form or the standardized Federal form was in conflict of making States provide "widely available" opportunities.

Either way, a voter is STILL required at the polling place to provide an ID to prove they are who they say they are.

Don't you need proof of identification to get a drivers license? How about cash a check at the bank or store? How about buying cigarettes and alcoholic beverages? Buying a house? Getting a library card. The list goes on but when it comes to voting you don't need any?

Through my eyes, voting is very important. ID should be required. I could go to different polls (if I knew who was not voting) and tell them I'm someone I'm not and vote in teir place for who I wanted.

This is stupid on the judges behalf.

reply to post by Intelearthling


You misread the ruling. Proof of who you are is required at the polling places. Meaning, to vote, the Arizona law remains in effect, to show your identification.

It is the voter registration side that was struck down. While I don't agree with that ruling, you should get your facts straight before you spout of incorrect claims.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thanks for correcting me. I read it in detail and yes I had it backwards. So excuuuuuuse me!

If this judge could strike down the Arizona law, then shouldn't the same ruling go into effect for all states?

I had to have my registration transferred and while I wasn't asked for proof of citizenship, I did have to give my SSN and check a box that I was indeed a citizen before I could complete the form.

And as far as showing who you are at the polls, they only ask you your address. They don't even ask for any voter registration card or ID. I could be John Boy at 443 Myrtle Ave. for all they know.

reply to post by Intelearthling


actually all that is needed to be registered to vote is showing valid id such as a driver license

and as we all know illegals well most of them they hand those out like candy

proof of citizenship is not required to get a drivers license in most cases.

which means anyone can and will be voting.

this ruling is a travesty and mockery of the entire legal system in america

obama and the left cried foul saying republicans and foreign corporations were buying the us elections

well obama and the left have one upped the republicans now this election cycle will be voted by foreigners themselves.

meh.........

It's the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. I expect no less out of the laughing stock of the judicial system.