Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | Yellow Pages | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : opinions : editorials April 18, 2015


6/19/2013 6:00:00 AM
Editorial: Court ruling simply creates more hoops
The Daily Courier


The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of proof of citizenship to register to vote. In the ruling Monday, it said states can't demand proof of citizenship - such as a driver's license - from people registering to vote in federal elections.

Arizona voters in 2004 approved Proposition 200, which required a state driver's license, birth certificate or passport to vote.

This will all end up as more of a nuisance than anything - and at least two entities agree.

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said of the court ruling, "Well, actually, there is a large victory if you read between the lines... I guess, in summary, Congress wins hands down in the field of regulating federal elections, but states have very wide authority to decide who gets to vote in both state and federal elections."

Said a different way, "At first glance, this appears to be a victory for the opponents of Proposition 200 (requiring proof of citizenship for registration). It is true that the ruling prohibits the use of the AZ form, which specifically requires proof of citizenship and demands the use of the federal form that requires only that applicants assert that they are U.S. citizens."

However, a news release from the Arizona Latino Republican Association continues, "The ruling also specifically recognizes that the states have the constitutional right to determine eligibility of voters. This leaves the door open for (Arizona) to request the Elections Assistance Committee that they include language on the federal form that allows for the requiring of proof of citizenship."

Furthermore, the ruling states, perhaps even suggests, that our state sue the committee, under the Administrative Procedure Act, if it refuses to comply with Arizona's - or any other state's - request.

Therefore, the high court's ruling is more of an additional hoop we must jump through, as opposed to an overturn of Prop. 200. Additionally, the Secretary of State's office says, fewer than 8 percent of voters register using the federal form.

In the end, proof of citizenship will be required. It is unfortunate that the court chose to place another hurdle in Arizona's path toward fair elections, but that is the nature of today's political world and government.




    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Couple arrested after allegedly assaulting cops (5851 views)

•   Freezing temps coming to northern Arizona (4495 views)

•   Marines train in Prescott, PV (2808 views)

•   Voters to decide Prescott's future Aug. 25 (1549 views)

•   What is that I spy east of I-17? BLM acquires more land for monument, prevents development (1488 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Friday, June 21, 2013
Article comment by: Kat Dream Weaver

To those commenting on not allowing Naturalized Citizens being able to vote how many of you have ancestors that came to this country illegally back in the day! Unless you are Native American your family members were Naturalized Citizens! You need to look in your closets at the skeletons in there then maybe you might get off of your soap box . But then most of you won't be able to accept the fact where your voting rights came from !


Posted: Friday, June 21, 2013
Article comment by: Arizona Provisonal Sarcasta-Voting

That will be rich, petitioning the Elections Assistance Committee "that they include language on the federal form that allows for the requiring of proof of citizenship."

I'm sure they will be willing to cooperate in one of Arizona's effective methods to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

@Alan Whitney,
Please step back from the event horizon vortex, going backward in time is stupid. We know what happened. And, yes some of us are going to expose the hypocrisy and break the corrupt control of the corporate stooges in the Legislature. ALEC in Arizona, check it out if you think I'm lying.


Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: @ Tom Von Deck The only kind of property...real.

Yes, real estate type property. Renters and non-real property owners are getting a free ride in many instances.

Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Tom Von Deck

Mr. @: What kind of "property" are you talking about? A pair of socks? A fishing pole? A house appraised at a minimum value? Should home renters be allowed to vote?

Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: TOM STEELE GRAMMAR NAZI

I do this intentionally as I have little respect for the republican party at this time in history.

Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Citi Zen

Useful idiots support the notion that people should not have to prove their right to vote in the U.S. There are several examples of this right here in the comments section today, let alone all across the country.

Of course, useful idiots do not know they're useful idiots BECAUSE they are useful idiots. Thus, they'll deny that they are...because they ARE. Useful idiots don't know they are useful idiots and they never will. But the rest of us know they are, oh yes.


Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Tom Von Deck

@Alan: A lot of people are defending those who are citizens and those who are non-citizens who have come here legally. There are also those who are defending children of the undocumented who know no other nation but the USA. Some methods prescribed here on this site only provide endless harassment of those who belong here but have a darker skin complexion. The ends don't justify the means. That's different than "defending illegals".

Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: In the Know

Politicians of all stripes know it is easy to get sheeple overwrought over these "hot button" issues.

Once you are all atwitter over voting laws and abortion laws, then you are distracted from the facts the banksters stole your home, your friends and neighbors are jobless, food stamps are cut, the farm bill is the biggest welfare check going out to Archer Midland Daniels and other agri business entities and the country's infrastructure is crumbling beneath your feet. Keep turning against each other and you will all perish. Oh, and we are to be comforted knowing congress got a full briefing on the meta data spying. How comforting when congress approval rates just above venereal disease


Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Alan Whitney

This country is committing suicide.

Will someone please take a step back, and explain why?

Why are so many defending those who have come to this country illegally? Why?



Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: @ J K Over wordy, and wrong again.

J K...you said: "Voting is a right"

This is incorrect. LEGAL Voting is a right.

Illegal voting is a crime.

There is no 'right' for felons, non-citizens, and those other wise ineligible to be allowed to vote. Were it up to me I would also make 'Non-Residents' ineligible to vote as well.

It's clear what you Obmunists are up to when trying to get illegals, disconnected, dependent, and felons to vote. You lefty's like all those immigrants, and you love Is, and socialism too - because these folk are all naturally happy being eternal victims, or at least won't fight back. They enjoy misery inflicted by tyrants, either individual despots, or mass socialist movements. Always dependent and always submissive - and that is just the type of people the elites running the socialist left wants to populate America so they will have someone to lord over.

Try some patriotism for once, instead of just your selfish wants of the moment. How about a little love of country instead of just yourself for a change? Just because a society does nice things for you and millions of others, does not mean it should be destroyed so you can feel empowered.

Voting should be limited to only those born legally in the USA, who can speak English, who own property, and pay taxes. No one else should get a ballot.


Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Tom Steele

Mr. ARIZONA AND OTHER STATES please use capitals to designate Republican or Democrat when blogging. And what about the feds removing the "easily" defrauding of Motor Voter registration? Once again we are reminded of the monster created by our Founding Fathers but they also feared.

Posted: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

@Jmad- That would be o evidence of vote fraud. You cannot have evidence that something did not happen. The most you can ever have is a lack of evidence that it did happen.

...


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: J. Madison

@Attentive Listener - you give away your status as an ideologically driven lefty as soon as you start the name-calling. It's also immature. Anyway, you are in fact wrong, largely because you are confused. You say that evidence of no vote fraud is "impossible". Really? If all who vote are verified to be qualified to cast a vote, tell me precisely why that is NOT evidence of no vote fraud. I think it is you who needs to brush up on or develop some familiarity with introductory logic.

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: J K

I don't know who wrote this editorial but it is short on facts.. First, the ruling does not change ID requirements, only that documents providing concrete proof of citizenship cannot be required. The voter must still swear that he/ she is a citizen. The requirement of identification is required still follows the 2004 proposition. While a drivers license that shows the current address does fulfill that requirement by itself, other identification can be substituted. Ironically, a passport doesn't fulfill the requirement, as the writer claims, as no address is on that document. Most other identification options must have both the name and current address on them and must include two separate documents showing the same name and the same address. The 2004 law did not require a drivers license be shown even though, for most people, it is the most convenient.
And to the commenter who compares voting ID requirements to banking, liquor buying and library usage, ,one doesn't have a right to a banking acount, or liquor purchases or a library card. Voting is a right


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: does this mean

I can now vote in Mexico?

Answer: HE|| NO! THEY HAVE RESIDENT VOTER LAWS SILLY PERSON!


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

@James Madison, who said:
"No evidence of vote fraud IS NOT evidence of no vote fraud."


Evidence of no vote fraud is impossible. It is not logically possible to have positive evidence of a negative statement. The only thing there can ever be is an absence of positive evidence for the corresponding positive statement. Elementary, my dear Troll. Maybe you should take introductory logic before you insult the critical thinking abilities of others.


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: @ J. Madison

To answer your question, let’s rephrase yours: “Why would any citizen worthy of that status care if they are being treated differently and discriminated against vs other citizens?” For that very reason. They are citizens of this country and therefore believe they should be treated equally.

Case in point are naturalized citizens vs native born. As it is illegal to make copies of naturalization documents, naturalized citizens are unable to simply mail-in their proof of citizenship (unlike native born voters) and have to register in person.

If you don’t like the law, then change it to where everybody has to appear in person to register. That should solve your dilemma (although it would still be illegal).


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: As I See It

Tom Von Deck:
"It's well established that the undocumented don't vote in significant numbers."
You know I often see this assertion made, but no one that makes it EVER provides any independent evidence at all it is a true statement. I see you are no exception.
And even if it was true I can't help noticing the "in significant numbers" qualifier. Who gets to decide what number of illegal voters is "significant" in any given election? Here my guess, for liberals, no number, no matter how high, is significant, and never will be, as long as the people here illegally are perceived to be voting for liberals. If illegal voters ever start voting for conservatives watch how fast liberals decide that number has to go to zero immediately. It basically boils down to "it's not a problem because they are voting for us". I had to show a picture ID to get a Prescott library card for goodness sakes, but it is to much to ask for people voting for President? Don't be ridiculous.


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: J. Madison

@TVD - so just how is it that True the Vote and Alec know this? More importantly, is it correct or just more propaganda from you and your fellow travellers?

No evidence of vote fraud IS NOT evidence of no vote fraud. I know that is a difficult concept for those living in the socialist echo chamber and those crippled by an absence of critical thinking skills (compliments of our public education system), but it is true nonetheless.


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: Tom Von Deck

True the Vote and Alec know full well that strict voter ID laws will lead to a reduction of LEGITIMATE voters who tend to vote for Democrats. It's well established that the undocumented don't vote in significant numbers. The bulk of the disenfranchised are legal citizens. People can talk all they want about the responsibility of getting their documents in order, but the bottom line is that a sizable portion of Democratic voters won't bother showing up. The historical trend has always been toward making it easier for people to vote. There's no need to go backwards. You can scream "voter fraud" thousands of times, but that doesn't make it real. All it will do is instill a perceived problem in the minds of many Republicans.

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: J. Madison

Why would any citizen worthy of that status be opposed to requiring those who seek to vote to prove that they are citizens? Can someone answer that in a serious way?

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: Very True My Post is

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 run by idiots.


Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: Scalia and Roberts vote Prop 200 down

And that "wild-eyed Liberal", Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion and was instrumental in overturning the core of Prop 200! That's when you know AZ was way too far out on the limb. LOL!

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: ARIZONA AND OTHER STATES

run by republicans, are passing laws that are unconstitutional and costing taxpayers millions to defend. If the republicans are so high on defending the constitution, why are they trying to pass laws that are unconstitutional? Our money could be better spent. People should be sick of this crap. No wonder our state budget is screwed up. Don't even get me going on defending Arpaio's exploits of the law.

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Article comment by: Hooty Hoo

I think that it makes sense that you prove you are a citizen to vote, but it probably doesn't matter, because we're talking illegal Mexicans here, and I bet virtually none of them even care about voting especially illegally. Heck, most hispanic citizens don't even register to vote.


  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you



Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

 •  Browse the Yellow Pages

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
© Copyright 2015 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2015 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved