Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Another day, another Ninth Circuit decision. The case of Gonzalez v. Arizona involves an Arizona law which, in a typical display of bad manners asks people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, and then asks people to bring ID with them to the polling place. First the good news, the 9th Circuit actually agreed with the trial court that the polling place ID requirement is okay.
But when it comes to voter registration, the Court struck down the proof of citizenship requirement as inconsistent with federal law - the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which creates a "federal form" for voter registration. The federal form does not require proof of citizenship. Granted, the Constitution does give Congress the last word on regulation of federal elections:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. (Art. I, Section 4).
But the point of this clause was to allow Congress to intervene if the States somehow rigged their election system in a way that threatened the Union. Hard to believe that the clause prevents states from adopting more stringent measures to enforce what is already federal law (i.e., that only citizens can vote in federal elections). But then, as we've seen in the immigration context, the feds don't like it when States do their job for them.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Adam -- i havent read the decision, and it certainly seems to me like proving citizenship is reasonable, but wouldn't the NVRA preempt state action on the issue of voter registration ?
Oct '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
By the grace of Bob, I am not a U.S. citizen, but every time I have visited that country since 2001 (as infrequently as possible), I have been required to present a “photo ID” in order to board even domestic airline flights. In fact, in May 2006, when I presented my driver's license at a check-in at Marquette Michigan, jack-booted thugette “Laurie” deemed it inadquate and demanded my passport in insulting terms.
Voting, however, apparently requires no such level of scrutiny.
Short 'em when they go gibbering around the bend crazy.
And they said investing was difficult.
Dec '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
I never understood the rational against requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Isn't this common sense?
ID is required to buy weapons, booze, smokes, to operate a vehicle, to join the Army, to open a line of credit, to order Net Flix, to rent an apartment, to adopt a dog (seriously, the hoops required to adopt a dog in Arlington, VA are insane... I'm talking site visits to your apartment!), to open a tab at most bars, to go to "gentleman's clubs", etc. etc.
Why wouldn't people be required to present ID if they want to vote?
Aug '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
So because a federal form doesn't ask something, no one is allowed to ask it? It sounds as if the pre-emption concept assumes federal bureaucrats are omniscient.
Jan '11
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
And, of course, state and local elections are almost always held at the same time as federal elections. Registration permits the voter to vote for all of the offices. Aren't states permitted to require proof of citizenship for their own elections?
Aug '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Michael Horn: I never understood the rational against requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Isn't this common sense?
ID is required to buy weapons, booze, smokes, to operate a vehicle, to join the Army, to open a line of credit, to order Net Flix, to rent an apartment, to adopt a dog (seriously, the hoops required to adopt a dog in Arlington, VA are insane... I'm talking site visits to your apartment!), to open a tab at most bars, to go to "gentleman's clubs", etc. etc.
Why wouldn't people be required to present ID if they want to vote?
I think the argument is that every citizen has an inalienable right to vote.
Let's say that Person X is a US citizen, but Person X refuses to show identification. That doesn't change the fact that Person X is a US citizen, and therefore has the right to vote.
It's a paradox, to be sure.
Also, if that's the argument, then one shouldn't have to present ID when buying a firearm, since the constitution says gun ownership is also a right.
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
The Ninth Circuit should be restricted to San Francisco, and the other areas within its jurisdiction should be reassigned.
Jul '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
So when the Ninth Circuit votes on a decision the justices are not required to show ID so that James O'Keefe and his merry band can slide in and vote their decisions for them. I think we can make this arrangement work with a little effort and some duct tape. James and company will just have to remember to write the decisions in crayon.
Nov '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Adam Freedman:
The text is the text. Reading intent into it is misguided.
Sep '11
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
My husband became a naturalized citizen last year. When he went to register to vote, he took his documentation with him, but no one asked him for anything.
Looks like we lost thirty years of a reliable conservative voter, but there's the rub: conservatives respect the law and would not dream of trying to register when they know they are not entitled to.
There is only one plausible reason Democrats oppose voter ID. Voter fraud appears to be a basic part of their strategy to win elections, covered under the "whatever means necessary" motto.
May '11
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Adam Freedman: AGranted, the Constitution does give Congress the last word on regulation of federal elections:
That should not be so broadly read as to defeat:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Not JMR,Agreed, the text is the text, but that only tells us that the Congress has the power to regulate the manner of holding federal elections, I'm not convinced that it extends to voter registration (indeed, under the constitution voter eligibility is meant to follow state requirements not vice versa). But even if the Election Clause extends to registration, it is one thing to say that federal law does not require proof of citizenship, but quite another thing to say that states are forbidden from imposing such a requirement themselves.
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Ps -- the passage cited above by ctlaw is, I think, the relevant one. Voting eligibility for federal offices is meant to follow state law.
Feb '12
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
If only citizens can legally vote, when and how are they supposed to prove they are citizens if not at the time they register and via a birth certificate?
Oct '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Democrats doesn't think voter fraud is a big problem, Republicans think otherwise.
Aug '10
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
The constitution doesn't say they have to prove their citizenship. I believe that's the argument.
Re: Voter Registration: Proof of Citizenship Not Required
Misthiocracy
The constitution doesn't say they have to prove their citizenship. I believe that's the argument. · 2 minutes ago
That's quite true; although the Constitution says that Congress is to be chosen by "the people" and, at the time of the founding, "the people" was a term of art that basically meant "citizens" (there were some exceptions - in some early states, immigrants were given the vote w/o becoming citizens).
Also, the Constitution says (as ctlaw points out above) that, in each state, eligibility to vote in federal elections must be the same as eligibility to vote for "the most numerous Branch" of the state legislature. It seems mighty odd to me that the federal government's power to regulate the "manner" of conducting elections effectively overrides the States' power to determine the means of qualifying voters.