quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot force residents to show proof of US citizenship when they register to vote.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said that the 2004 Arizona law was trumped by a federal law.

The Supreme Court said it was enough to ask prospective voters to tick a box on forms stating they are US citizens, without demanding documentary proof.

It is Arizona's latest immigration-related law to reach the top court.

The state is in frequent legal clashes with the federal government over the issue.

Four states have similar laws and 12 more have been considering such measures.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a 1993 national law designed to make it easier to register to vote took precedence over Arizona's requirement.

The 1993 law requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's licence or certain benefits.

On the federal form, applicants are asked to state under oath that they are US citizens, on penalty of perjury.

But Arizona argued such assurances were not enough in their state, which borders Mexico.

The state's 2004 law added a requirement that applicants provide a US birth certificate, passport or other proof of citizenship.

Justice Scalia said the federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself".

Immigrant rights groups, who said the law put an undue burden on naturalised citizens, hailed the decision.

Two of the court's more conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented.
The US Constitution "authorises states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections", Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22941984

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Well, I think primarily, we are talking about people who aren't citizens and therefore, aren't paying taxes, either. I think there's some merit to allowing people who actually participate in funding the government to vote and to preventing people who don't fund the government from voting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Im wondering when we dropped into the twilight zone again
non citizens dont pay taxes, , renters vote themselves free medicaid, free food stamps, free heat, free bus passes and even free phones.
WOW the level of stupid shit just gets deeper

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot force residents to show proof of US citizenship when they register to vote.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said that the 2004 Arizona law was trumped by a federal law.

The Supreme Court said it was enough to ask prospective voters to tick a box on forms stating they are US citizens, without demanding documentary proof.

It is Arizona's latest immigration-related law to reach the top court.

The state is in frequent legal clashes with the federal government over the issue.

Four states have similar laws and 12 more have been considering such measures.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a 1993 national law designed to make it easier to register to vote took precedence over Arizona's requirement.

The 1993 law requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's licence or certain benefits.

On the federal form, applicants are asked to state under oath that they are US citizens, on penalty of perjury.

But Arizona argued such assurances were not enough in their state, which borders Mexico.

The state's 2004 law added a requirement that applicants provide a US birth certificate, passport or other proof of citizenship.

Justice Scalia said the federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself".

Immigrant rights groups, who said the law put an undue burden on naturalised citizens, hailed the decision.

Two of the court's more conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented.
The US Constitution "authorises states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections", Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22941984

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Syllabus, Held, b):
"Nonetheless, while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from “deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.” Pp. 6–13."

Supreme Court website

Therefore, if States have no information in their possession establishing the applicant's citizenship States can deny registration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I want us to have more scientists and engineers. Not more 3rd world influence.