- Paul Walker secretly bought $9K wedding ring for Iraq vet
- Mystery sign poster hits Washington state town: ‘It’s OK to say Merry Christmas’
- Pope Francis forms commission to advise on sex abuse
- Anthony Weiner on radio? Cumulus says, ‘Never, ever’
- Executive order: Obama ups green-energy mandate on feds to 20 percent
- GOP launches candidate training: How to talk to women
- N.Y.’s Rockefeller Center lights up, as Bloomberg flicks on 76-foot Christmas tree
- Northern Ireland turns to ‘Game of Thrones’ to draw in tourists
- Washington woman live-tweets husband’s horrific car death
- China City of America mulled for New York — with $65M tax dollars
Voter ID case heads to Supreme Court
Arizona’s citizenship proof stirs the debate
An Arizona law designed to stop illegal immigrants from voting hangs in the balance, as the Supreme Court will take up a landmark case this month on whether the state can demand would-be voters to prove they are citizens before casting ballots in federal elections.
The dispute centers on its Proposition 200 referendum passed by voters in 2004 that requires residents to show “satisfactory evidence” of citizenship — such as naturalization papers, a birth certificate, passport or Indian tribal identification — before registering to vote. A standard Arizona driver’s license also is accepted because the state requires proof of citizenship to obtain one.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — responding to a legal challenge by a group of Arizona residents, Indian tribes and civil-rights groups — ruled the citizenship requirement conflicted with the 1993 federal law known as the “Motor Voter Law,” drafted in part to make it easier for people to register to vote, including requiring states to offer registration at driver’s license offices. Arizona appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, with oral arguments set for Monday.
“It’s a big deal,” said Luis Vera, national general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, a group that opposes the Arizona law. “It’ll change the game throughout the country, no matter what they decide.”
Arizona and other supporters of the law — mostly Republicans — say the citizenship requirement is a valuable tool to combat voter fraud. The state argues that the appeals court should have given more deference to state authority.
“The citizens of Arizona passed a proposition saying that you must show evidence of citizenship in order to register, you show identification at the polls in order to vote, and we don’t think either one of those things are unreasonable,” said Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
But the law’s critics — mostly Democrats, Hispanic-rights organizations and civil-rights groups — say it imposes an unfair burden on residents and threatens to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, the elderly and students, all of whom generally vote Democratic.
The case “is critically important to the goal of increasing voter participation in this country and of ensuring the strength of our democracy,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and chief counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which opposes the law.
Mr. Vera likened the citizenship requirement to Jim Crow-era literacy tests in the Deep South designed to keep blacks from voting.
“It’s just another voter suppression issue,” he said.
But Mr. Bennett said no one who legally has the right to vote in Arizona should find it difficult to produce at least one of the many document options the state gives voters to prove their citizenship.
“I don’t think anyone is disenfranchised with the breadth of what they can show,” he said.
The courts in recent years have upheld several challenges to state laws that have strengthened rules requiring voters to show identification before casting ballots, including a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court decision in May 2008 that upheld a photo ID requirement in Indiana.
And since the 2008 elections, about 15 states have passed laws strengthening rules requiring would-be voters to show identification before casting ballots, leading some Supreme Court observers to predict the Arizona case will go in the state’s favor.
But because the Arizona’s voting requirement centers around proof of citizenship — not just a photo ID — many legal analysts say it’s difficult to guess what the court will decide.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP tests Democrats on college loan issue
- Lawmakers outside intelligence loop get miffed about briefing structure in Congress
- John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor
- Supreme Court nears rulings on key voting rights cases
- John Boehner demands answers on NSA, phone records
Latest Blog Entries
- CURL: 'Mission Accomplished' for Obamacare
- American teacher shot and killed at Benghazi international school
- NAPOLITANO: Liberty, the wellspring of capitalism and charity
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- Pentagon may give recruits 'a shot to start over' after shameful social media posts
- Democratic infighting erupts over 'we can have it all' fantasy on entitlements
- HARPER: 'Knockout game' not a myth to liberal Sharpton
- Obama returns to class warfare as poll numbers plunge
- Hack attack: 2 million Facebook, Twitter passwords stolen
- Inside the Ring: China targeting U.S. spy flights amid escalating tensions
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
History doesn't have to be grim; there is a lot to be learned from the pages of time.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Dolloff and friends.
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.