Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Voting law isn’t useful:

The Arizona voting-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court is more about states’ rights vs. federal control of elections than about the particulars of the case itself.

Yes, that sounds like a familiar, Arizona-centric issue.

From efforts to nullify federal laws to this current question of whether Arizona can pack additional requirements onto a federal voting-rights law, our state is highly prone to challenging federal dominion.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The New York Times editorialized in an opinion today that Arizona's voter ID law should be overturned. Arizona’s Barrier to the Right to Vote:

Arizona’s Proposition 200, passed in 2004, prohibits local officials from registering any would-be voter who does not provide “satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” That requirement conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter Act, which set up a national registration system for federal elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments (.pdf) about whether states have the power under the federal law to add restrictions to voter registration. They clearly do not. The justices should reject Arizona’s law as invalid and avoid recreating the problem that the federal law was intended to fix.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post has an editorial opinion this morning on Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Arizona voter ID law should be overturned:

COMPARED WITH WHAT some Americans have to tolerate on Election Day,
registering to vote is relatively painless. That’s partly thanks to the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law at the root of a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. The state of Arizona argues that it should be allowed to subvert the law’s obvious purpose. The court shouldn’t let it.

In 1993, Congress looked at the “complicated maze” of often
confusing and sometimes discriminatory state election rules, and it
found that “unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct
and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for federal
office.” So lawmakers established national standards. Americans could
register to vote when getting driver’s licenses, which gave the act its
unofficial name: the “motor voter” law. Congress also required every
state to accept a simple, common, mail-in registration form
drafted by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The record
indicates that Congress meant these to be among the “procedures that
will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in
elections for federal office.”

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Lyle Denniston has a recap of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning of Arizona's Prop. 200 voter registration case. Argument recap: Does “may only” mean “shall only”?

Anyone entering the Supreme Court’s chamber Monday morning expecting
constitutional drama over the right to vote had to come away quite
disappointed.  It took all of fifty minutes of a one-hour argument to
get to any constitutional issue, most of the Justices wanted to focus on
what “may only” means in a federal law, and one Justice pronounced the
current federal-state voter registration regime “a crazy system.”  In an
era when very heated debates over curbing voters’ rights regularly
occur in political circles, there was none of that as the Court heard Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (12-71).

At the center of the case is an Arizona law, approved by the state’s
voters nine years ago, that requires a would-be voter seeking to
register to show proof of U.S. citizenship as an additional requirement
besides submitting a federal form which includes a question — enforced
by possible perjury prosecution — asking whether or not one is a
citizen.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) revealed that his son is gay and that he has now decided to support gay marriage. Some are praising him for his "courage," and others (namely the "God hates gays" crowd) are condemning him for his reversal — Portman was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have to agree with Jonathan Chait, Rob Portman, Gay Marriage, and Selfishness:

The triumph of the issue
relies upon the changing of minds — some thanks to force of argument,
others to personal contact with gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors.
From that standpoint, Portman’s conversion is a Very Good Thing.

And yet as a window into the working of Portman’s mind, his
conversion is a confession of moral failure, one of which he appears
unaware.