The US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot force residents to show proof of American citizenship when they register to vote.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices ruled a 2004 Arizona law was trumped by federal law.

The Supreme Court said it was enough to ask prospective voters to tick a box on forms declaring they are US citizens, without demanding documentary proof.

It is Arizona's latest immigration-related law to reach the top court.

The state is in frequent legal clashes with the federal government over the issue.

Four states have similar laws and 12 more have been considering such measures.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a 1993 federal law designed to make it easier to register to vote took precedence over Arizona's requirement.

The 1993 law requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's licence or certain benefits.

On the federal form, applicants are asked to state under oath that they are US citizens, on penalty of perjury.

But Arizona argued such assurances were not enough in their state, which borders Mexico.

The state's 2004 law added a requirement that applicants provide a US birth certificate, passport or other proof of citizenship.

Justice Scalia said the federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself".

Immigrant rights groups, who said the law put an undue burden on naturalised citizens, hailed the decision.

The ruling "sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law," said Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defence and Education Fund.

Part of the concern was that while the regular form can be mailed in, federal law prohibits copying naturalisation documents for proof of citizenship, forcing those citizens to apply in person.

Two of the court's more conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented.

The US constitution "authorises states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections", Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.

Kathy McKee, who led the push to have the requirement enacted into law, said the ruling would make it harder to combat voter fraud.

"To even suggest that the honour system works, really?" Ms McKee said. "You have to prove who you are just to use your charge card now."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday announced his intention to file another amendment to the so-called “gang of eight” immigration bill that is facing tough opposition from some GOP lawmakers.

“I’ll file amendment to immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters & close this hole in [federal] statutory law,” Cruz wrote via his official Twitter account.

I'll file amendment to immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters & close this hole in fed statutory law.
about 6 hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@SenTedCruz

Senator Ted Cruz
Cruz has consistently opposed the immigration bill, voting against its advancement in the Senate three times and has shown no signs of flipping on the legislation.

Cruz previously attempted to amend the bill to remove the path to citizenship provisions for illegal immigrants. As previously mentioned, the Texas Republican’s latest amendment would require states to require ID before registering voters.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make voting easier. The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Could you elaborate please? I'd be interested in hearing what your take on this is.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Could you elaborate please? I'd be interested in hearing what your take on this is.

My thoughts on the travesty of voter ID requirements are preserved here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/436548.page

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Could you elaborate please? I'd be interested in hearing what your take on this is.

My thoughts on the travesty of voter ID requirements are preserved here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/436548.page

voter ID requirements is a travesty? Really?

You do know that the poorest of the poor need to show identifications for numerous things... like foodstamps, disablitity, etc...

The issue should be how we can implement this in an easy, equitable fashion.

 Manchu wrote:
Not everyone who is entitled to benefits actually gets them.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm saying that:

(1) people who would otherwise vote are probably not blocked from voting by these laws;

(2) people who would otherwise commit election fraud are probably not blocked from committing election fraud by these laws;

(3) I don't believe these laws are motivated by any concern about election fraud based on actual problems;

(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;

(5) balancing the lack of actual electoral protection against the strong appearance of racial and socioeconomic bias is an embarrassment to a culture that claims to value egalitarianism.

 Manchu wrote:
Not everyone who is entitled to benefits actually gets them.

The U.S. Federal government issues the following types of identity documents:
Certificate of U.S. Citizenship
Certificate of Naturalization
Immigration and travel-related documents issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to non-U.S. citizens, such as the Green Card.
Passport
The passport card is a travel document available to U.S. citizens for land and sea travel to Canada, Mexico, and various Caribbean destinations. It was introduced in 2008.
NEXUS card for travel between the United States and Canada.
SENTRI card for travel between the United States and Mexico.
The Transportation Worker Identification Credential, a new biometric security identification credential to be phased in by April 15, 2009, issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
The Merchant Mariner's Document, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Cards that prove participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
Other documents that are evidence of an individual's identity:
Airport Identification (SIDA Badges)
State/territory driver's license (see above)
ID card issued by federal, state, or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color and address
School ID card with photograph
Voter's registration card
Native American tribal document
Other examples of documents involving personal identity include:
Credit cards and debit cards
Internal identification card issued by one's employer, university or school
Proof of professional certification (for members of regulated professions)
Proof of automobile insurance card (when driving)
Health insurance card issued by a private health insurance company, by Medicare, or by a state public health insurance agency
Library cards
License documents issued by government organizations authorizing privileges other than driving, such as an amateur radio license or concealed firearm permit
Utility bills are often used as proof of residence or address.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
In Indiana I can get an identification card by going to the BMV and proving my identity, SSN, lawful status and residency.

 Ahtman wrote:
The problem there is that you would have to be in Indiana, and that is something no one should have to go through.

Edit: Apparently I should take that back as Indianapolis is now the most sexually satisfied city in the country.

 kronk wrote:
Ahtman, that article is from August, 2010.

I was in Indianapolis in August 2010 for GenCon.

Women of Indianapolis, you're welcome.

 kronk wrote:
Ahtman, that article is from August, 2010.

I was in Indianapolis in August 2010 for GenCon.

Women of Indianapolis, you're welcome.

 djones520 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Not everyone who is entitled to benefits actually gets them.

South Carolina tried passing this law, offering free official state id, as well as providing public transportation so that the most disadvantaged could get to the location to get the I.D. for free.

People still fought it.

I still have not heard one reasonable argument how this is considered an unreasonable expectation for anyone.

 Manchu wrote:
(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;

(5) balancing the lack of actual electoral protection against the strong appearance of racial and socioeconomic bias is an embarrassment to a culture that claims to value egalitarianism.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;

(5) balancing the lack of actual electoral protection against the strong appearance of racial and socioeconomic bias is an embarrassment to a culture that claims to value egalitarianism.

I didn't realize the message we were all supporting by wanting proof of residency was equivalent to "Don't let the brown people vote".

 Frazzled wrote:
To those who don't like the cncept of voter id, under what conditions would it be acceptable to have voter id?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To those who don't like the cncept of voter id, under what conditions would it be acceptable to have voter id?

In at least one of two scenarios:

(1) where immigration status is meaningfully normalized and where citizens of any race or national origin are not disproportionately marginalized

and/or

(2) where incidents of voter fraud of that type which voter ID laws address demonstrably undermine free elections.

Since neither of those scenarios accurately represents reality, voter ID requirement laws are not necessary. Since reality is the reverse of both of those scenarios, voter ID requirement laws are not only unnecessary but also harmful.

 Manchu wrote:
(1) where immigration status is meaningfully normalized and where citizens of any race or national origin are not disproportionately marginalized

 Manchu wrote:
and/or

(2) where incidents of voter fraud of that type which voter ID laws address demonstrably undermine free elections.

Since neither of those scenarios accurately represents reality, voter ID requirement laws are not necessary. Since reality is the reverse of both of those scenarios, voter ID requirement laws are not only unnecessary but also harmful.

 Manchu wrote:

Since neither of those scenarios accurately represents reality, voter ID requirement laws are not necessary. Since reality is the reverse of both of those scenarios, voter ID requirement laws are not only unnecessary but also harmful.