On almost the eve of a political contest which will decide much about the future of America, the notoriously LEFT WING 9th Circuit Court declared null and void a requirement that those who register to vote in the state of Arizona MUST show proof of citizenship.
Many of the decisions by these Court Leftists have been over turned by the U.S. Supreme Court, but there will be little time available to accomplish this before the November 2 balloting.
If any readers don’t think that we in America are under siege by Marxists and other leftists on all fronts, please think again. Here is a news article from the East Valley Tribune:
“A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a state mandate for people to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.
In a divided decision, the majority of the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the requirement, approved by Arizona voters in 2004, runs afoul of the federal National Voter Registration Act. That law spells out what states can and cannot require to vote in federal elections.
Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing the majority decision, specifically concluded that the requirement to produce one of a list of specified documents proving citizenship is on that list of what is not allowed.
That conclusion drew derision from Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees elections and who said the proof is necessary to protect the integrity of elections.
“If you buy that argument, then I assume they are going to let us go through airports signing a certificate saying that ‘I am not a terrorist, I promise I don’t have any explosives in my underwear,’ ” Bennett said. He vowed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the 2004 measure, said the ruling “flies in the face of common sense.”
“It should go without saying that states have the right to ensure that only citizens vote,” he said.
Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups that sued, said there are parallels between this case and the more recent challenge to the state’s new immigration law. In both cases, she said, judges have struck down efforts by Arizona to usurp federal authority.
“What the federal courts have done consistently now, recently, is told Arizona that these schemes that it’s coming up with, whether it’s voter registration schemes or whether they’re immigrant regulation schemes, are outside the bounds, and that Arizona has to comply with the superseding federal law,” she said.
Tuesday’s decision comes less than a week before the 9th Circuit hears arguments about whether a federal judge correctly enjoined the state from enforcing that new immigration law. And in December the U.S. Supreme Court will review a different Arizona law allowing the state to suspend or revoke the business licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
Nothing in the decision will affect Tuesday’s election, as the deadline to register to vote was Oct. 4.
The new ruling split the three-judge panel.
Siding with Ikuta was retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was sitting in as an acting appellate judge. Judge Alex Kozinski dissented, arguing that the full 9th Circuit reached a different conclusion three years ago.
But Ikuta said that 2007 ruling “was rooted in a fundamental misreading of the statute.” She said it was based on the premise that Arizona could either accept the federal registration form created under the NVRA, which does not require proof of citizenship, or develop its own.
“The NVRA commands without exception that states ‘shall’ accept and use the federal form,” Ikuta wrote. “And if they develop their own form, it can only be used ‘in addition to’ accepting and using the federal form.”
While striking down the proof-of-citizenship requirement, the court let stand the other key provision of the law which require people to provide identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.
The registration and voter ID requirements were part of a larger measure approved in 2004 which bars those not in this country legally from getting certain benefits. But it also included the changes in voting laws that supporters said were necessary to ensure that only those legally entitled to vote will affect the outcome of elections.
Various groups representing Hispanics and Native Americans sued, saying the requirements amount to illegal racial discrimination. But U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, in a 2008 ruling, rejected the challenges.
She said while requiring proof of citizenship makes the process more cumbersome, it has not prevented most people from completing the process. She also said the inconvenience of having to gather the required documents “does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
Ikuta, in Tuesday’s ruling, said the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government control over voting procedures for national elections and lets Congress supersede any state election laws. She said Congress specifically approved the NVRA to preclude “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures” which can affect voter participation.
That law mandated creation of a federal voter registration form which may require “only such identifying information … as is necessary to enable the appropriate state election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.”
It also requires that those attempting to register be informed of all requirements, including citizenship; new voters must attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet the conditions.
But Ikuta noted the law says the form “may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” language she said precludes proof of citizenship.
Technically speaking, the ruling covers only registration to vote in federal elections. But Arizona has a single registration process to vote for not only the president and members of Congress but also the governor, legislators and other state and local officials.
Bennett said that would make it theoretically possible for the state to keep the citizenship requirement for those state and local elections if the Supreme Court does not overturn this ruling. But Perales said any effort by Arizona to create a state-only registration process with a proof-of-citizenship requirement could run afoul of other federal laws which prohibit states like Arizona, with a history of discrimination, from altering procedures in any way that would impair minority voting.
Pearce criticized “activist judges ignoring the rule of law. And he singled out O’Connor, an Arizona native, for special criticism.
“It is particularly disturbing that retired Justice O’Connor, who seems more and more like a politician these days, signed onto a decision that could undermine the integrity of our elections,” he said.
Comment: Sandra Day O’Connor was never capable of deep thought. Please review some of her writings and you will find a fairly empty head. She was chosen because she was a woman, not because she was used to thinking.
…………….Fox News reported the following on the Circuit Court’s Decision:
“A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a key part of Arizona’s law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote and to show identification before casting ballots.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.
The ruling left in place a requirement that voters provide proof of identity when casting ballots.
Lawyers for several civil rights groups that sued argued thousands of Arizonans have had their federal registration forms rejected because they failed to provide other documents required by the state. That violates the federal law, they argued.
The state law in question, Proposition 200, was passed by voters in 2004. It required proof of citizenship during voter registration and of identity at the polls, and also while receiving certain state benefits.
It has been upheld by state and federal courts until Tuesday’s decision.
In a statement, one of the attorneys who argued the case said his group was “elated” by the decision.
“This will enable the many poor people in Arizona who lack driver’s licenses and birth certificates to register to vote,” said Jon Greenbaum, legal director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office issued a statement saying it intends to ask a full panel of 9th Circuit judges to reconsider the case.
The ruling applies only to voter registration and the deadline for voting in the Nov. 2 general election has passed, so it will have no practical effect on voting, the statement said.
Appeals Court Judge Sandra S. Ikuta’s opinion was joined by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who heard the case as a temporary appeals court judge. Ikuta said the federal voter registration law laid out specific requirements for the mail-in registration form that the state can’t make more onerous.
“There is no room for Arizona to impose … an additional identification requirement as a prerequisite to federal voter registration for registrants using that form,” Ikuta wrote.
The panel’s ruling overturned a previous 9th Circuit panel ruling that found Proposition 200 did not violate the National Voter Registration Act.
The 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote a sharp dissent, saying the ruling ignored precedent and was flat wrong on its legal analysis.
“Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once,” Kozinski concluded. “Count me out.”
Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett issued a joint statement calling the decision an “outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections.”
“Arizona voters have made their will crystal clear — non-citizens do not have the right to vote,” they wrote. “We will continue to pursue any and all legal remedies to prevent fraudulent voter registration in the State of Arizona, as well as the right of our state citizens to craft appropriate protections.”
The panel agreed with a district court judge who ruled in 2008 that the law does not constitute a poll tax or disproportionally impact minority voting. It also rejected two constitutional arguments brought by the groups that sued.”
Filed under: American Culture, Marxism, National Politics | Leave a Comment »