jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (61 posts)

What do you think about the ruling for Arizona?

  1. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship for voter registration. HUH???? Sorry, I'm all for legal immigration, but voting is a right reserved for U.S. citizens - not for illegal immigrants. When American citizens are convicted of drug crimes, their voting privileges are suspended for a period of time. But anyone in Arizona can register to vote, with no proof of citizenship required.

    The court says providing a birth certificate would be too expensive for poor people. How much does a birth certificate cost in Arizona?? I got one in GA a couple of years ago, and it was $10.

    I had to provide a birth certificate in order to get a driver's license, and I think voting is much more important than driving.

    Here's a link to the article:

    http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in … es-arizona

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The 9th Circus Court was wrong! What country anywhere else in the world permits illegal aliens to vote in their elections? It's absurd! The federal government has declared war on the people!

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your synopsis of the ruling is incorrect.  The ruling did not state that non-citizens can vote, it stated that Arizona's law attempted to trump federal law (sound familiar?), and would create a hurdle that many LEGAL citizens would have trouble complying with.  I live in AZ and have never been required to show proof of citizenship for any state documents even in situations where I was subject to intense background checks.  I do have to show photo ID in many situations; I, and every other citizen of Arizona will have to do so at the polling place next Tuesday.  The law was written not to insure the integrity of the voting process (the authors knew it would never get through the courts).  Like SB1070, it was written in a cold, politically calculated manner to frighten gullible people with visions of a "brown hoard" invading our state. (the shrill voice of our governor who concocted a story about dozens of headless corpses being found in the Sonoran desert is already howling against the ruling to politicize the issue)

      The fact that Sandra Day O'Connor, (a temporary appointee to the ninth, and a jurist widely respected across the political spectrum)was in the majority is convincing evidence that the right decision prevailed.

      Brewer supports the law, O'connor slaps it down. Good enough for me.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say it said that non-citizens can vote - I said that proof of citizenship could not be required. Why would this be problematic for citizens to obtain??

        1. Aya Katz profile image89
          Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Habee, not all citizens are natural born. Some are naturalized. They are given a single copy of a certificate of naturalization, and they are told they are not allowed to photocopy or replicate it in any way whatever. There is a Federal penalty of imprisonment for violating that.

          So, when having to prove citizenship, you have to either bring this certificate with you (and it's not something you can keep in a billfold) or you have to bring a passport. Passports cost more than birth certificates, and they expire, and then you have to go through an entire paper chase to go get another one.

          So I think it would be better to register to vote once where you live, and show your proof of citizenship that one time, but then not have to bring it along every time you vote. You can just bring proof of identity and a voter registration card to the polls.

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Again, I'm talking about REGISTERING to vote - a one-time thing.

            1. Aya Katz profile image89
              Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Then I agree with you.

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Sorry, I may have given this statement a more literal meaning than you intended.  It seemed that your objection to the ruling was based on this being the ultimate result.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Right, but I did not say that the law states that it's okay for illegals to vote.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I stand corrected and deserve a spanking.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That should be more entertaining than anything else.

    4. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, not only can illegal immigrants not vote, legal ones (i.e. those on work visas or even with green cards) can not either. The striking down of this law does not change that either.

      The fact is that you're required to provide proof of US citizenship when you actually vote. Nothing's changed here.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, you're not required to provide proof. Read the law. You simply have to check the box that says you're a US citizen.

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You're right. Well, you have to prove legal residency, at least, in California, to get a driver's license, and you need a driver's license to be able to vote. I don't know what it's like in Arizona but I'd imagine it's similar or the same.

          That would mean that a legal immigrant (like a green card holder) could technically vote, but not an illegal immigrant. But I'd imagine the penalties for illegally voting would be big enough to scare off a legal immigrant from bothering to try.

    5. S Leretseh profile image60
      S Leretsehposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a VERY long history of un-American ruling.  Every ruling they make is under scrutiny from the conservative US Supreme Court.  This will likely get overruled - like so many of the past un-Ameican (anti-American) rulings from this court over the last 30 years.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your post indicates that you have little if any understanding of our court system or the meaning of the term "American".  Do you live outside of the U.S. ?

        1. S Leretseh profile image60
          S Leretsehposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "has a VERY long history of un-American ruling"

          i.e. in the last 30 years or so... The 9 Circuit Court has been a focus of conservative criticism for as long as I can remember. I think MANY of their rulings border on un-American. Just my opinion.  Honestly, though, if you are politically informed, the 9th vs. the conservatives on the US Supreme court is common knowledge. To bring you up to speed Ron, I provided U a link below.

          http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No need to be brought up to speed.  I'm very aware of the despicable tactic of labeling anti-conservative beliefs as anti-American.

            Most reasonable opinions are the focus of "conservative" (more accurately radically right wing) criticism.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Laretseh - The court of appeals only reviews for errors of law.  They will not reaccess findings of fact.  If they find no errors of law, the decision of the lower court stands.  If they find an error of law, the case may be retried in the lower court.

  2. Shadesbreath profile image89
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    The problem, truthfully, is in the fact that sophists have been writing laws for 150 years.  I propose a new law that requires all laws be wiped off the books down to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as ammended by the process) every 100 years.  Period.

    If it didn't matter enought to be ratified through the system (unchanged) then it is a suspect law.  Clear them out every century. 

    Yes, I'm with you, it is idiocy to allow non citizens of a country to have a say on the forming of the country's laws.  The stupidity of such a system is beyond fathoming. 

    I want to be knighted by the Queen of England pretty much more than anything.  Should I (and people like me) get a say in their policy until that can finally happen?

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I love that analogy, Queenie! lol

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm an anarchist, but I'll settle for the Constitution.

      I completely agree with throwing out all unconstitutional laws.

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    I've never been asked for a birth certificate or proof of citizenship in order to vote. Has anyone else? In Michigan they ask only for a driver's license or photo I.D. showing your residence address.

    1. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Is that when registering to vote, or at the polls?

  4. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I honestly can't remember if I had to show my BC or not when I registered to vote, but I think everyone should be required to do so! A BC is not hard to obtain, and I did have to have it to get a learning permit driver's license when I was 15.

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Typically what happens is  when you get a Drivers Liscense you are asked if you want to release the VERIFIED data that the DMV required to the Voting Registers office. If you do, they will recieve it electronically. Then all is required is a photo id.

      However some states only require you to sign an affedavit stating you are a US citizen. Tennessee for example. The result is that many non citizens vote EVERY election. The affedavits are researched, but normally NOT in time for certification. In fact most aren't even followed up on.

  5. Jesusjohn78 profile image60
    Jesusjohn78posted 6 years ago

    It cost me $17 online for a certified birth certificate.  I did not even have to prove who I was which I think is a crock.  its no wonder identity fraud is so rampant. But that's not the point.

    No one should be able to legally vote in any country that they are not a legal citizen of.  However, when we still have dead people voting and all the other underhanded and traitorous ways politicians use to deceive the voters and keep their jobs does it surprise anyone that elected judges would want easily manipulated non citizens to have the right to vote.  Especially illegals who could then vote the people out of office who are trying to prosecute these people for being here ILLEGALLY.  The governor of Arizona is rocking the boat to much, so the career politicians are scared and will do what ever it takes to get her out of office.  Including committing voter fraud by allowing illegal aliens vote. Those judges should be tried for treason.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image80
      Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It does seem strange - There is absolutely no way that I can register to vote in national elections in Greece, simply because I am not a citizen. That is fair and I have no problem with that.

      I am allowed to vote in local elections, though smile

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Like I said, Sufi, I have no problem with non-citizens voting on local matters. They live and work in the community and contribute to it. Only those residents are voting in such a situation, so the entire state or nation are not affected.

  6. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I think everyone should present a birth certificate and a photo ID to be able to register to vote in a state or federal election.

    For local laws, maybe legal non-citizens who can prove that they live and work in the area should have a say, too - but DEFINITELY NOT in state and local elections!

    Wonder how many dead people are voting in Chicago this election?

  7. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    When do you have your next election in Arizona?
    I lived there for about two months in the early 70's.
    I'll fly over and register and vote.

    How's that?
    Will they allow me?

  8. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    I'm sure it made complete sense to the two judges that voted against providing proof.  You just have to look at what they view as the truth.

    1.  There's no such thing as voter fraud.

    2.  We can't burden voters by having them prove who they are.    It's insulting and it might damage their self esteem.

    Makes perfect sense to me, of course, I was release from the Cloverbottom Mental Facility just last week so I'm not quite into the swing of things yet.

  9. William R. Wilson profile image59
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    There's a lot of opinions being thrown around here. Has anyone actually read the court's opinion?

    The court simply ruled that a 1994 federal law supersedes a law that the state of Arizona passed in 2004. 

    It's maintains the standard that people all over the rest of the country must follow.  I've never been required to provide a birth certificate to register to vote, or to apply for a job, or to get a drivers license, or to buy a gun, etc.  Why should anyone else be subject to different requirements?

  10. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Evidently, the people of Arizona were worried about non-citizens registering to vote.

    I'm surprised that you didn't have to prove your age when applying for your first driver's license - I did. Of course, I suppose you could have used your SS card to do so.

    As I said, I think everyone should have to prove citizenship to vote in state or national elections - not just the folks in Arizona. I don't see how this in any way discriminates or disenfranchises potential voters. If you were born in the US, a BC is easy to get. If you've earned your citizenship, you can use those papers. When non-citizens vote, it lessens the value of MY vote. I take voting very seriously.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image59
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually Habee it's been a couple of years (decades actually) since I first got my drivers license so I may not be remembering all the details and requirements.  And the laws may have changed since then. 

      As I've moved around in my adult years, though, all I've ever been required to show for anything (a job, drivers license, to vote, etc.) is a social security card, a drivers license, and sometimes a utility or phone bill. 

      Once citizenship is established with a social security card, why should I or anyone else be required to prove it again every year when I try to vote?

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not saying you should have to establish it every time you vote. I'm talking about REGISTERING to vote.

    2. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think they should provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Then when they come in to vote with their voter registration card, all they need do is prove that they are the person who registered.

  11. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Amendment 14 of the US Constitution clearly and specifically outlines the definition of a US citizen.

    Amendment 15 declares that only US citizens have the right to vote.

    The requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 are to assure the quality of a person’s ID

    Voter registration assures that only citizens participate in the election process in compliance with Amendment 15.

    The birth certificate requirement in the law was proposed for those that have yet to verify citizenship or satisfy the requirements of the 2005 Real ID Act.

    Tell me where these requirements are of issue, difficulty or burden for a US citizen?

    Can it be assumed that those opposed to this rule want to guarantee that non-citizens vote in our elections?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image59
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you should read the court's opinion?  I would guess that a lot of the legal precedent was established during the Jim Crow years, when there were all sorts of requirements to vote that mainly served to keep black folks from voting. 



      Why does there have to be a conspiracy?

  12. Aficionada profile image95
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    When I think of all of the hoops that we citizens have to jump through for everyday matters (such as for cashing a check at the bank I use regularly; paying by check at certain stores; correcting the mistaken way my name was printed on my driver's license - had to show my marriage license for that!), I become quite angry at what looks like non-citizens being given preferential treatment in voter registration.

    I understand that people of different economic means need to have equal access to the process, and that means taking into account that what is simple for some may not be simple for everyone.  But I am firmly on the side of making it close to  impossible for non-citizens to vote in state and national elections. And I don't really like the idea of illegals voting in local elections.  Legal non-citizens, perhaps.

  13. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    I did not need to provide a Birth Certificate to register to vote, but when I vote I have to provide an ID.

    When you apply for a drivers license at whatever the legal age is in your state you must be able to provide proof of your age. A birth Certificate or something proving when you were born is required and anyone who says they didn't provide it is confused.

    A Social Security card is not a valid form of ID because it does not list the required birth date, etc.

    As for the ruling, it will be struck down when it reaches a competent court.

  14. Moonchild60 profile image84
    Moonchild60posted 6 years ago

    I don't get it, I live in New York and I am registered to vote and they have my name down every time I enter the school gym and tell them who I am but they NEVER ask me for any proof.  Never.  Are they supposed to or is that fact that they always have me down there as a registered voter enough?  I mean I could lie about who I am and how would they know?  Except of course they do have my signature from the previous time I voted so maybe they just make sure they match? 

    No, illegals should not be able to vote except locally.  Period.

  15. William R. Wilson profile image59
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    I guess I am just less concerned about individuals, illegal or not, casting a single vote in an election than I am about corporations having the legal rights of a human being and pouring unlimited funds into the electoral process. 

    Illegal immigration just seems like a non issue to me.  Yes, they shouldn't be able to vote, but they are just working people like the rest of us.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "I guess I am just less concerned about individuals, illegal or not, casting a single vote in an election than I am about corporations having the legal rights of a human being and pouring unlimited funds into the electoral process."

      You don't care about the illegal activity as much as you care about the legal activity.

      That isn't backwards at all. roll

      1. William R. Wilson profile image59
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Slavery was quite legal for many years.  Doesn't make it right.

        Honestly - what has more effect on elections:  individuals voting, or corporations pouring billions of dollars into political campaigns?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Slavery was quite legal for many years.  Doesn't make it right."

          You equate a corporations legal right to slavery?

          1. William R. Wilson profile image59
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm simply pointing out that just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

            Now please answer my question - what has more of an impact on an election:  an individual casting a single vote, or a corporation spending millions to support a particular candidate?

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't like that, either, William!

              1. profile image60
                sunny5555posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There is alot of stuff going on in AZ. , the illegal's were offered a green card 2 diff. times, not everyone went for the card. Some choose not to learn english, they would rather hide and hope not to get caught. ( they could have gotten the g. c. for free ). In AZ. to get a drivers lic. you need a birth cert. ( I use to live there for a while ). I do know there are people who live in AZ. and they are upset.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              A single vote x 1 million.

              1. profile image60
                sunny5555posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Not everyone lives in AZ. so, it is hard for them to feel what they are feeling.

  16. J.R. Smith profile image58
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    so mickey mouse and donald duck can vote? What about the "gay" tele-tubbie?

  17. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Okay, Ron - that makes TWO spankings for you!!

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hey Habee, how's your husband?

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        bump...

      2. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He's tired right now. We just came home from a Halloween party - we were pirates!! Johnny is better but is still weak. Thanks for asking!

        1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
          SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          WOW!...that's good...he went out....glad to hear that...it'll take time!

  18. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    What's with all these spankings of Ron Montgomery by Habee? This is not the only thread I've seen that on.... Is he a naughty boy?

    Glad Johnny's doing better. Glad you're here hanging with us!

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, MM! Yessss...Ron is a very bad boy! No cupcakes for him!

  19. Dink96 profile image60
    Dink96posted 6 years ago

    Wow.  Showing your birth certificate or Nat. Cert. to vote?  Really?  The AZ law was yet another attempt by my embarrassment of a state to trump federal law.  I'm very weary of people, especially my current governor, who cannot read, particularly our Constitution.

    Thank goodness we still have AZ natives like Sandra Day O'Connor who grew up on a ranch roping and branding cattle before she went to law school (only to have someone offer her a job as a secretary!) acting as a voice of reason in this legal wilderness out West.

    I wish they would kick Jan Brewer to the curb and dump Joe Arpaio in the can next to her.  Both of them are a matched pair of morons.  I haven't been so ashamed of my state since Evan Mecham was governor.

  20. Tusitala Tom profile image89
    Tusitala Tomposted 6 years ago

    As an Aussie I can't really give a valid opinion on the subject being discussed other than to say this:  I agree with Shadesbreath.  Every 100 years all laws should be subject to analytical scrutiny with a view to wiping them from the statute books.  Lawyers seem to earn their living high feels by continually conteracting one another with conflicting legislation.  If there were less laws there might not be less litigation, but lawyer's fees and court costs would probably be a lot cheaper.

    I think England only got rid of a law concerning the burning of witches a few decades back!   Let's get real!

 
working