Justices Block Law Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 7-to-2 decision that Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote in federal elections there. Related Supreme Court Lets Regulators Sue Over Generic Drug Deals (June 18, 2013) A 5-4 Ruling, One of Three, Limits Silence’s Protection (June 18, 2013) Related in Opinion Editorial: The Court: Congress Regulates Federal Elections (June 18, 2013) Connect With Us on Twitter Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines. Twitter List: Reporters and Editors Readers’ Comments Share your thoughts. Post a Comment » Read All Comments (833) » The ruling was the second in two terms to reject Arizona laws that the state’s officials justified as responses to illegal immigration. In both cases, the court insisted that the federal government has the dominant role when it comes to national issues like controlling the borders and how federal elections are conducted. According to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, tens of thousands of Arizonans have been denied the ability to vote because they failed to present the required evidence when they tried to register. “The decision really puts another barrier in front of those who would seek to suppress votes,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. But John Kavanagh, a Republican state legislator, said the federal government had not done enough. “Arizona has a serious problem with illegal immigration, being one of the leading illegal entry states, so protecting the credibility of our election system requires that we exclude illegal aliens and any other noncitizen from voting,” he said. “Not being able to request proof makes that impossible.” The decision, with its lopsided vote, is not an indication that the court will always be sympathetic to claims of voter suppression. Its decision on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is expected by the end of the month, and it may limit what its supporters say is an important tool in protecting minority voters. Nor has the Supreme Court been uniformly hostile to Arizona’s efforts to address what lawmakers there say is a crisis in illegal immigration. Last year, it upheld one part of a tough 2010 state immigration law even as it endorsed broad federal power over immigration. In 2011, it sustained a different law that imposed harsh penalties on businesses that hired illegal workers. On Monday, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a form displaced an Arizona law requiring various kinds of proof of citizenship. The law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens. The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove they were citizens by submitting documents like birth certificates, passports or naturalization papers. They could also provide a driver’s license number from a state that verifies citizenship. The state law was a result of a 2004 voter initiative, Proposition 200, that said it was meant to combat voter fraud. The law has given rise to tangled proceedings ever since. Under the Voting Rights Act, Arizona was required to obtain federal approval before it changed its voting procedures. The Justice Department granted approval in 2005. Much of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion concerned the meaning of the phrase “accept and use.” Arizona officials argued that they do accept and use the form, but also require additional information. An airline may accept and use e-tickets, they said, but also require identification. In the decision on Monday, Justice Scalia said the phrase “accept and use,” when understood in context, meant that the federal form had to be accepted as sufficient. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined all of the majority opinion, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined most of it. In a long dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Constitution gave states the power “to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.” “Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the framers’ design,” Justice Thomas wrote. In a second dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. focused on the language of the federal law, which he said was ambiguous. The majority’s interpretation of it, Justice Alito wrote, “produces truly strange results.” He said he would read the law to mean that states “accept and use” the federal form so long as it is “a meaningful part of the registration process.” Justice Alito likened his proposed process to the common application used by many colleges and universities. Those institutions, he said, “also require that applicants submit various additional forms or documents.” Justice Scalia wrote that Arizona had additional options if it wished to obtain documentary proof of citizenship. It may ask the Election Assistance Commission, a federal body, to make changes to the federal form. Arizona made such a request in 2005, and the commission split 2 to 2, effectively rejecting it. The state did not challenge that action in federal court. The commission recently approved a request from Louisiana to require additional information from its voters, Justice Scalia noted. He said Arizona could ask again. In dissent, Justice Alito said the majority was giving the state an empty promise. He pointed out that the commission “currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future.” In response, Justice Scalia suggested that the state could sue in federal court based on its inability to obtain relief from the commission. Last year, a divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the federal and state laws “do not operate harmoniously” and “are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.” The court blocked the state law. The decision from that panel effectively affirmed a 2010 ruling from a three-judge panel that included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2006 but occasionally acts as a visiting appeals court judge. She joined the majority in ruling that the state law was inconsistent with the federal one and so could not survive. Justice O’Connor was in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on Monday to see the announcement of the decision. Rebekah Zemansky contributed reporting from Tucson. New York Times - 06/18/2013 efsadvocacia.br
Posted on: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:05:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015