Only 2 Justices stood with the writings in the Constitution
(US News) The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that requires people to submit proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
The vote was 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that a 1993 federal law known as the Motor Voter Act takes precedence over the Arizona law because of its requirement that states “accept and use” the federal voter registration form.
From WRAL, where I first saw this
The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.
Justice Alito was the other dissenting vote.
Let’s put this into context: The government is looking to legalize up to 11 million illegals. None of them would be citizens, and will have no right to vote as long as they are under the provisional status. Yet, federal law is rather weak on registering to vote, and this SCOTUS ruling means states which have a large population of illegals could see vast numbers registering with no way to determine eligibility. Go look up the requirements to register and see how easy it is to commit fraud.
If a reader of the Scalia opinion stopped at the top of page 13, the impression would be very clear that Congress had won hands down in the field of regulating federal elections. But from that point on, there is abundant encouragement for what is essentially a states’ rights argument: that is, that the states have very wide authority to define who gets to vote, in both state and federal elections.
On the particular point at issue in this case — Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship before one may register to vote or actually vote — the Scalia opinion said that a state was free to ask the federal government for permission to add that requirement. And, Scalia said, if that doesn’t work — either because the federal agency that would deal with such a request is either not functioning or says no — then a state would be free to go to court and make an argument that it has a constitutional right to insist on proof of citizenship as an absolute qualification for voting, in all elections.
However, no one should think that the Obama/Holder heavily politicized and illegal immigrant favoring DOJ would allow any requirements for proof of citizenship, especially if the Gang of 8 immigration bill passes. Democrats will want as many people voting as the can, even if they are not entitled to do so. In fact, as a sidebar, if the bill passes, Dems will immediately agitate and push to make them naturalized citizens ASAP, forget 13 years. But, in the intervening time, they will allow no measures that would require proof of eligibility to vote, and the left side groups will certainly work to register the illegals with provisional status.
As far as court goes, one could expect the DOJ to gum up the works as long as possible, and surely past the 2016 General Election.