High court divided over Ariz. voter requirement

March 18, 2013 @ 1:01 pm


FILE – This Aug. 5, 2008, file photo shows the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services building Phoenix. The Supreme Court argued Monday, March 18, 2013 over whether states fighting voter fraud and illegal immigration can make people document their U.S. citizenship before allowing them to use a federal voter registration system that was designed to make it easier to vote. (AP Photo/Matt York, File) | Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices disagreed Monday over whether states can require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

Arizona and other states told the justices the precaution is needed to keep illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from voting. But some justices asked whether states have the right to force people to document their citizenship when Congress ordered the states to accept and use federal "motor voter" registration cards that only ask registrants to swear on paper that they are U.S. citizens.

"I have a real big disconnect with how you can be saying you're accepting and using, when you're not registering people when they use it the way the federal law permits them to," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne.

Said Horne: "It is the burden of the states to determine the eligibility of the voters."

This is the second voting eligibility issue the high court is tackling this session. Last month, several justices voiced deep skepticism about whether a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that has helped millions of minorities exercise their right to vote, especially in areas of the Deep South, was still needed.

The court will make decisions in both later this year.

In Monday's case, the court is deciding the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that that 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states _ Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee _ have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.

The federal "motor voter" law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law _ the one at issue before the court _ requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn't require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to think that a sworn statement wasn't enough to allow people to register to vote. "If you're willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you're willing to violate the perjury laws," he said.

But lawyer Patricia Millett, representing those challenging the law, answered that courts accept sworn statements as proof in criminal cases, some of which end in executions. Congress decided that a sworn statement with the risk of perjury was sufficient to register to vote in the federal system, she said. "This is not just a ticket into the state's own registration process so they can go, `Thank you very much, (throw) it in the garbage can, now do what we would like you to do.' It is a registration form," Millett said.

The Arizona requirement applies only to people who seek to register using the federal mail-in form. The state has its own form and an online system to register to vote when renewing a driver's license. The appeals court ruling did not affect proof of citizenship requirements using the state forms.

Justice Samuel Alito asked if Arizona kept two different voter rolls, one for people who used the state system and one for those who use the federal. The answer was no.

That means that some people face one set of requirements to vote, and others a different set, he said. "This seems to me like a crazy system," Alito said.

Opponents of Arizona's law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they've counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

Checks since last fall by The Associated Press showed that in Colorado, election officials found 441 noncitizens on the voter rolls out of nearly 3.5 million voters. Florida officials found 207, or 0.001 percent of the state's 11.4 million registered voters. In North Carolina, 79 people admitted to election officials that they weren't citizens and were removed from the rolls, along with 331 others who didn't respond to repeated inquires.

Horne compared the Arizona system to an airline sending out e-tickets instead of paper tickets but asking for identification before allowing passengers to board the airplane. "That would not contradict the statement that they are accepting and using e-tickets," he said.

But Justice Elena Kagan didn't accept that analogy, saying Arizona went further. "Wouldn't it contradict it if instead of saying `Well, we'd like you to offer identification,' saying, `Well, we'd like you also to have a paper ticket'?" she said.

Arizona asked the federal government to add the state's citizenship eligibility requirements to the federal form but was turned away. Scalia said the state should have sued to overturn that decision. "Why didn't you do that?" said Scalia, who indicated that he would look favorably on such a challenge.

The decision not to challenge was his predecessor's, Horne said.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

___

Associated Press writer Jacques Billeaud contributed to this story from Phoenix.

___

Follow Jesse J. Holland on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More National News
Top Stories

  • I-5 Bridge Collapse
    Three people were pulled from the water after I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River

  • Ban Lifted
    Washington state leaders hail vote to allow openly gay Boy Scouts

  • There's a Zone for That
    Mapping out a plan for marijuana growers and sellers
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (10)


  • Add A Comment

  • CH wrote...
    Wow thats new . . . .
    October 15, 2012 5:45 am
    you don't have to prove your a Republican to vote?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.
    March 17, 2013 3:01 pm
    Of course. Just one more FARK YOU to true Americans from Comrade Owebama and his minions. Only dumarse liberals, commies, sociolistt, anarchist and the other lefty losers would even have to consider such a stupid question. Asking this is like asking IS THE POPE CATHOLIC? IS CH A DUMASS? IS WRONWAY A COMMIE? All obvious answers....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Another reason republicans are losing at the polls
    March 17, 2013 5:22 pm
    So if the support of the administration is perceived as a waving finger to the "true Americans" (and I thought those were the indigenous peoples who were here before the white man), what kind of message are republicans giving to minority voters with these bills? Since fraudulent votes are clearly not a problem, it would appear that the real problem to the republicans are minority votes. Looks a lot like a waving finger to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Since fraudulent votes are clearly not a problem,
    March 18, 2013 9:02 am
    See this is the issue for Dimorats. Withouth fraudulent votes, they would lose....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    It doesnt seem to mean
    March 17, 2013 5:40 pm
    Jackshit to be an Anerican Citizen anymore. Amnesty, free welfare, healthcare, food stamps. You don't need I.D if your a minority. The Obama regime has turned being an American Citizen into a eF ing joke.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • adiru wrote...
    ACORN will now have
    March 17, 2013 6:22 pm
    to forge new birth certificates for Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck and also rescind the death certificates of those who voted. The animal shelters should already have born-on dates of some of the pets that voted so that will not be a problem. "Proposition 200 "was never intended to combat voter fraud," said Democratic state Sen. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix. "It was intended to keep minorities from voting." It's funny how you need ID to buy cigarettes and booze and to collect state/federal aid, but you can't produce it to vote?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    So actual voter fraud is irrelevant?
    March 18, 2013 5:28 am
    If you read the story you discover that instances of voter fraud are rare. If new requirements are created, then they should require everyone, not just the new voters to produce the same documents. That would be the only fair way to change voter registration requirements.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    IS CH A DUMASS? YES
    March 18, 2013 5:12 am
    Must voters have show to TAX RETURS to vote?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Every single one should
    March 18, 2013 8:54 am
    If you dont like it, Id say get a paddle and ???????
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Amazing
    March 18, 2013 9:08 am
    If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots......... If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }