Friday, June 28, 2013

Courtís voter ruling leaves questions


By THE CORTEZ JOURNAL

At first glance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding an Arizona law requiring voters to give proof of citizenship when registering to vote is a victory for those pushing for increased voter access. And for now, anyway, it is. But the decision is rooted in something a bit more arcane and procedural than an open-arms ideology.
    The court considered an Arizona ballot initiative passed in 2004 requiring that all who registered to vote in the state prove their U.S. citizenship. That requirement applied whether the voter used the state registration form or the federal one. The former had a citizenship requirement while the latter, governed by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, does not. In its 7-2 opinion, the court reminded Arizona that, for federal elections, it must adhere to the federal rules which do not require proof of citizenship for registration.
    State elections, though, are another matter and the court’s decision does not preclude registration for Arizona-only votes from requiring proof of citizenship. That is one hint at the decision’s procedural — rather than philosophical — focus.
    The ruling goes further, though, in that it opens the door for a change on the federal registration form. Because the current version of it does not require proof of citizenship, the opinion — written by Justice Antonin Scalia — says Arizona outgrew its britches and trampled on federal law with a more restrictive law of its own. However, the decision invites Arizona to request a revised version of the federal form that requires citizenship proof. To do so, Arizona would have to plead its case to the Election Assistance Commission, a federal body composed of presidential appointments. On paper, this is an easily arranged next step that may or may not produce Arizona’s intended result, but could at least settle the matter — if the commission had any members. Currently, it does not.
    This all serves to illustrate the salient points of the ruling: that Arizona’s citizenship requirement is not in and of itself unconstitutional, but the state’s attempt to supersede existing federal rules governing federal elections is too much. Should those rules change — and the opinion suggests that, in theory at least, they can do so relatively easily — Arizona would then free to require proof of citizenship of all its voters.
    That is an important distinction to consider when evaluating the court’s decision. While the ruling is a victory for those seeking to do away with restrictive laws that limit voter access — particularly among minorities, and individuals of lesser economic or physical means — it is far from an intractable guarantee that laws like Arizona’s are inappropriate. The court has ruled on a procedural notion that has very real practical implications for voters; it has not said what it thinks about states’ attempts to limit the ease with which voters can weigh in on elections. That is a far bigger question, that will take more than a trip to the Election Assistance Commission to settle.


The Cortez Journal, of Cortez, Colo., published this editorial on June 20.




About Comments

Comments with content that seeks to incite or inflame may be removed.

Comments that are in ALL CAPS may be removed.

Comments that are off-topic or that include profanity or personal attacks, libelous or other inappropriate material may be removed from the site. Entries that are unsigned or contain signatures by someone other than the actual author may be removed. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or any other policies governing this site. Use of this system denotes full acceptance of these conditions. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no way represent the views of Express Publishing, Inc.

You may flag individual comments. You may also report an inappropriate or offensive comment by clicking here.

Flagging Comments: Flagging a comment tells a site administrator that a comment is inappropriate. You can find the flag option by pointing the mouse over the comment and clicking the 'Flag' link.

Flagging a comment is only counted once per person, and you won't need to do it multiple times.

Proper Flagging Guidelines: Every site has a different commenting policy - be sure to review the policy for this site before flagging comments. In general these types of comments should be flagged:

  • Spam
  • Ones violating this site's commenting policy
  • Clearly unrelated
  • Personal attacks on others
Comments should not be flagged for:
  • Disagreeing with the content
  • Being in a dispute with the commenter

Popular Comment Threads





Copyright © 2014 Express Publishing Inc.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy
All Rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Express Publishing Inc. is prohibited. 

The Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents and guests throughout the Sun Valley, Idaho resort area community. Subscribers to the Idaho Mountain Express will read these stories and others in this week's issue.