Arizona follows Justice Antonin Scalia’s advice

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona struck down part of Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) — the part which required proof of citizenship to register to vote, even when using the federal voter registration form which only requires an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury — on the grounds of federal preemption of state law.

You may recall that Justice Antonin Scalia in his opinion was helpful in providing a roadmap to the state of Arizona on how to proceed further with litigation in a manner that would meet with his approval. Scalia practically invited Arizona to try again.

Arizona has been following Justice Antonin Scalia's advice, and is now ready to file yet another lawsuit at taxpayer expense. Attorney General Tom Horne, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the actual author of Prop. 200 and SB 1070 (not Russell Pearce), are set to file the suit today in U.S. District Court.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Arizona officials sue federal government over proof of citizenship:

The action is in response to the refusal
on Aug. 13 of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission’s executive director to consider putting the [proof of citizenship] requirement on [federal] forms specifically designed for Arizona.

The commission’s acting executive director, Alice Miller, said in a letter to Bennett that any decision to  include the requirement on the registration forms has to be made by a quorum of commissioners. The four
seats on the commission have been vacant for several years. An attempt
to fill them has stalled in Congress
.

Miller gave essentially the same response to Kobach regarding his state’s requirement on Aug. 6. Kobach was the leading force in writing
Arizona’s SB1070, the 2010 immigration law that was largely struck down
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Kobach also had a hand in writing Proposition
200 in 2004, which requires prospective voters to provide concrete
proof of citizenship, even on federal registration forms. The federal
forms require only an affirmation under penalty of perjury.

* * *

Bennett asked the commission to put
Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement on the national forms June 19
after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia suggested the legal maneuver
and then suing if the commission fails to act.

Scalia’s suggestion came in a June 17 high-court ruling holding that
Arizona cannot require the proof of citizenship for someone who submits
the federal form, but the state can have the requirement on its own
forms. States are required by federal election law to “accept and use”
the federal forms.

Horne contends that Miller recently gave Louisiana approval to put
requirements specific to the state on the federal forms. Louisiana
voters are required to present a state driver’s license, identification
card or Social Security number to cast a ballot.

This is true. In footnote 11 to the opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the court noted that an additional documentary evidence requirement recently was approved by the EAC in Louisiana:

"11. The EAC recently approved a state-specific
instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana
driver’s license, ID card, or Social Security number to attach
additional documentation to the completed Federal Form. See National
Mail Voter Registration Form, p. 9; Tr. of Oral Arg. 57 (United States)."

Arizona is suing under the Administrative Procedure Act because Tea-Publicans in Congress have effectively "nullified" the law that created the Election Assistance Commission, and have rendered the commission powerless by refusing to appoint members to the commission to prevent a quorum. Tea-Publicans in Congress voted to kill the Election Assistance Commission last year, House votes to end election commission, and the House Administration Committee again voted to kill the Election Assistance Commission in June. House panel OKs ending Election Assistance Commission.

When viewed in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and effectively "suspending" Section 5 of the Act, what we have here is Justice Scalia removing the legislative branch (Scalia suggested that Congress lacked the fortitude to vote against the popular landmark legislation, and would "continue those procedures in perpetuity," so the court had to act, in effect legislating his opinion from the bench), and removing the executive branch (U.S. Department of Justice enforcement), as well as giving his tacit approval to Tea-Publicans in Congress engaging in unlawful nullification of the Election Assistance Commission, leaving voting rights to the whims of conservative activist judges like Scalia — an unelected, and unaccountable (unless impeached) rogue judge.

Your constitutional right to vote rests in the hands of such a tyrant.

Comments are closed.