PJ Media
by J. Christian Adams
June 17, 2013

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.

(excerpted)
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/...singlepage=true

I don't know...I read the entire article but I still don't feel good about it. Maybe I didn't understand all of the state's rights, but the article was confusing to me.

I don't claim to be the smartest cookie in the jar.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #1

---

PJ Media
by J. Christian Adams
June 17, 2013

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.

(excerpted)
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/...singlepage=true

---

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #2

---

I don't know...I read the entire article but I still don't feel good about it. Maybe I didn't understand all of the state's rights, but the article was confusing to me.

I don't claim to be the smartest cookie in the jar.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #3

---

Re: Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

Not really.

The decision distinguished between registering to vote using a federal form and registering to vote using a state form.

The state can set up its own requirements to verify eligibility to vote, however the justices ruled federal law comes first.

Thus all a non-citizen has to do is register to vote using a federal mail in form and affirm that they are US citizens.

Whether the fraudulently registered person is allowed to vote then depends upon if the individual state requires some kind of voter ID, how good the requirements are to get that ID, and how easy it is to get fake that ID.

IMHO a good work around for a non-citizen could be to register by mail using federal form and use an absentee ballot.

---

Zitat

---

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

---

Is this true or not, ATG?

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #5

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #3

---

Re: Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

Not really.

The decision distinguished between registering to vote using a federal form and registering to vote using a state form.

The state can set up its own requirements to verify eligibility to vote, however the justices ruled federal law comes first.

Thus all a non-citizen has to do is register to vote using a federal mail in form and affirm that they are US citizens.

Whether the fraudulently registered person is allowed to vote then depends upon if the individual state requires some kind of voter ID, how good the requirements are to get that ID, and how easy it is to get fake that ID.

IMHO a good work around for a non-citizen could be to register by mail using federal form and use an absentee ballot.

---

Zitat

---

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

---

Is this true or not, ATG?

---

As far as I saw not true; however I'm doubling checking my sources. . Will post what I find.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #5

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #3

---

Re: Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

Not really.

The decision distinguished between registering to vote using a federal form and registering to vote using a state form.

The state can set up its own requirements to verify eligibility to vote, however the justices ruled federal law comes first.

Thus all a non-citizen has to do is register to vote using a federal mail in form and affirm that they are US citizens.

Whether the fraudulently registered person is allowed to vote then depends upon if the individual state requires some kind of voter ID, how good the requirements are to get that ID, and how easy it is to get fake that ID.

IMHO a good work around for a non-citizen could be to register by mail using federal form and use an absentee ballot.

---

Zitat

---

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

---

Is this true or not, ATG?

---

I found the decision: 51 pages of legalese,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
but using an article at heritage as a guide was able to locate what I think is the source of confusion re state verifying federal form.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/17/keep...-polling-place/

Background:
In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona.

The Supreme Court said that Arizona must “accept and use” the federal mail-in voter registration form specified by the federal National Voter Registration Act (the Motor Voter law). Arizona’s requirement that proof of citizenship be submitted with the federal form is preempted.

Two caveats to the decision:

Zitat

---

The Court specifically noted that under our Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to anyone who submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession that establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.

The Court also stated that Arizona can request the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the federal agency responsible for regulating the federal voter registration form, to include a state-specific instruction for Arizona including the proof of citizenship requirement. Arizona did that in 2005, and the four EAC commissioners divided 2–2 on the request, so the EAC took no action. If Arizona resubmits the request and the EAC refuses to include the instruction, Arizona can sue the EAC.

---

@ATG

Thanks for doing all of that research!

This was a Huge Win for the States yes. USSC upheld:
(1). You must be a legal US citizen to vote:
(2) the state has the right to ask for proof of citizenship/ID;
(3) The State does not have to use or hand out the federal form to registrants - they can use a state voter registration form asking for all the ID they wanted, and the federal form is the only form at issue in the ruling;
(4) Arizona went about it the wrong way administratively by seeking more proof of citizenship/ID then the sworn statement of citizenship in the federal by passing Prop 200 - which added more proof to the state specific federal voter registration form then the form itself had = they were supposed to have worked with the federal agency that creates the state-specific federal registration form to have their additional ID qualifications added to to the federal form. And,
(5) if the feds refuse to add them/block them etc with adding their additional proof of Citizenship/ID requirements to the state-specific federal form they can appeal the federal administrative decisions.

At issue was AZ as trying to stop vote fraud where they were mailing in federal form voter registrations which only had a sworn statement requirement for proof of ID/Citizenship, etc. They passed Proposition 200 which, in essence, said the sworn statement was not enough and AZ would not accept the federal form registrations without additional proof of citizenship/ID like DL number etc.

So Bottom line - AZ had the absolute right to do what they were doing, they just went about it the wrong way by adding additional ID requirements to a federal voter Registration form via passing a law instead of working with the federal agency to add the additional proof of ID to the federal form.

@algernonpj@Mechanicos

Thank you for digging up more information than was posted in the article.