-
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstorie...293163434.html
The Supreme Court jumped into the legal battle over voter identification laws Friday, ruling that Arizona may require voters to provide photo IDs when they cast their ballots next month.
The justices cautioned that they were not issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of Arizona's law. "As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested," the court said in an unsigned five-page order.
Indeed, the court said it would review the legal challenge to Arizona's Proposition 200, approved by the state's voters in 2004. The law requires voters to prove citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo IDs when they go to the polls. The law was meant to make sure illegal immigrants weren't casting ballots.
Opponents of the law contend it discourages some people from voting, including the elderly, poor and disadvantaged who don't always carry IDs.
A federal judge ruled the state could enforce the law. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later blocked it from taking effect for the Nov. 7 election.
Courts in Georgia and Missouri recently have blocked similar laws.
In his bid to allow the state to go forward, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard told the justices that "voter registration at the polls is an emerging issue of national importance. States have a compelling interest in curbing fraud and protecting the integrity of elections."
-
The 9th Circus got it wrong.
The Supremes got it right.
The argument against voter ID was that it violated the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution. They said it would amount to a "poll tax", requiring people to pay for an ID to prove residency.
For clarification, here's the text of the 24th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Now in order to invoke a violation of the 24th Amendment, the aggrieved person first has to show that they are a CITIZEN.
And how do they do that?
By showing proper identification. The same thing that Arizona requires at the polls in order to vote.
The fight against the Arizona Law was nothing more that an attempt to continue to allow immigrants, legal (not yet citizens) and illegal, to vote. The action was filed by the ACLU and other liberal groups, since illegal and legal immigrants fall predominently on the left. (Democrat)
Think about it. Voting is the most important and powerful thing we can do in our lives. You need a photo ID to rent a movie from Blockbuster, but those morons don't think we need one to vote?
-
The 9th Circus got it wrong.
The Supremes got it right.
The argument against voter ID was that it violated the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution. They said it would amount to a "poll tax", requiring people to pay for an ID to prove residency.
For clarification, here's the text of the 24th Amendment:
Now in order to invoke a violation of the 24th Amendment, the aggrieved person first has to show that they are a CITIZEN.
And how do they do that?
By showing proper identification. The same thing that Arizona requires at the polls in order to vote.
The fight against the Arizona Law was nothing more that an attempt to continue to allow immigrants, legal (not yet citizens) and illegal, to vote. The action was filed by the ACLU and other liberal groups, since illegal and legal immigrants fall predominently on the left. (Democrat)
Think about it. Voting is the most important and powerful thing we can do in our lives. You need a photo ID to rent a movie from Blockbuster, but those morons don't think we need one to vote?
Down here it seems they vote more to the right side but in really doesn't matter. But if you vote you should have to show some ID no matter who your voting for.
