culling voters: deciding who gets to vote

[evince]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/u...2ED83F&gwt=pay

[evince]

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...-gets-to-vote/

[evince]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...er-citizenship


The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case allowing states to require proof of citizenship for those applying to vote in federal elections, effectively upholding a lower court ruling against Kansas and Arizona.
Those states wanted the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to change its registration requirements to include proof of citizenship for those applying to vote in federal elections, as the states require for those using their state forms.


By not taking the case, the Supreme Court leaves*in place a November 2014 ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the states cannot require the documentation for applicants using the so-called “federal form.”
Voting rights advocates hailed the court's decision to not take up the case,*Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission.*Currently, the federal agency's form only requires applicants swear eligibility under penalty of perjury.
“This is a very big deal,” Rick Hasen, a*University of California Irvine law professor, wrote on his election*law blog. “Kobach had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states.”
The Supreme Court*ruled*in 2013 that Arizona could not require those using the federal form to provide proof of citizenship.
“Arizona citizens can continue to participate in voter registration drives without worrying about not having proof of citizenship documents,” said Shirley Sandelands of the League of Women Voters, one of the voting rights groups that urged the court to not hear the appeal.
The Brennan Center for Justice and several law firms that represented the group praised the Supreme Court in a*joint statement*for “securing a critical victory to strengthen the right to vote in federal elections in Arizona and Kansas and reaffirming the important role Congress plays in preserving a fair voter registration process across the country.”
“The Supreme Court decision not to review was not particularly surprising given the fact that there was no circuit split yet,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who*filed*the joint appeal to the federal appellate court decision with Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, said in an interview with*Roll Call.*
Typically, Kobach told the newspaper, “the Supreme Court favors reviewing decisions where one circuit has gone one way and another circuit has gone another way. It appears that the Supreme Court is waiting for another circuit to weigh in.”*
Kobach expects the 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the two states, to eventually weigh in, according to*Roll Call.
AddThis Sharing Buttons

[evince]

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...-gets-to-vote/

The controversy arises at the intersection of two recent trends in the management of elections. First, a number of states, out of a fear of voter fraud (especially, a suspicion that non-citizens who are illegally in this country are voting), have been imposing tight new ID requirements to ensure that only citizens get to vote. Second, Congress and a federal election management agency have been proceeding, under a 1993 law, to try to ensure that barriers to registration are eased so that more people get to go to the polls.

[evince]

there is no proof illegals voting is a real concern


there have been court cases all the way to the SCOTUS that show ID laws strip legal voters of their rights to vote.


the republicans want voters to be kicked off the rolls so they can win

[canceled.2021.2]

Why is proof of citizenship a bad thing? I guess Deshtard wants terrorists to vote


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cypress]

Why is proof of citizenship a bad thing? I guess Deshtard wants terrorists to vote


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But that is not the real reason for this is it? That fact that rightwingers have never been seen making demands that vote-by-mail voters, and overseas military voters "show IDs when voting", means it is not really about "proving citizenship",.....because those vote-by-mail voters tend to be older, whiter, and/or more conservative.

The real reason, as you well know assuming your IQ is over 60, is to make it more of a hassle for people to vote who might be expected to vote more Democratic.

[NOVA]

In a land where its a law that only citizens are allowed to vote would it be insane to not have voters prove they are citizens.....
which, in turn, proves liberal Democrats are mentally defective and afflicted with Cognitive Dissonance

Its akin to not allowing police to demand drivers show their license to drive or concert goers to not be asked to show their tickets and
hundreds of other occasions where proof is required to show you belong there....its plain common sense.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Voting is a right. If a non-citizen votes, you can prosecute them after the fact. You can't take away rights, like voting, before the trial.

[NOVA]

Voting is a right. If a non-citizen votes, you can prosecute them after the fact. You can't take away rights, like voting, before the trial.

Non-citizens have no right to vote in the first place, so you're not taking anyone's right to vote....
You can't catch a person that abuses the right to vote if you refuse to even seriously look for voter fraud....the RNC was ordered to stop verifying voters registrations decades ago and its still in force....how the hell do you expect to find illegal voting if you can't even verify voter registrations beforehand?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You can only take away a person's right to vote after proving beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that they are not citizens. You cannot require them to prove they are citizens beyond a reasonable doubt as a precondition for exercising their right. You are reversing the burden of proof.

[NOVA]

You can only take away a person's right to vote after proving beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that they are not citizens. You cannot require them to prove they are citizens beyond a reasonable doubt as a precondition for exercising their right. You are reversing the burden of proof.

Why not....YOU are reversing the burden of proof....being a citizen IS already a precondition for exercising their rights....

Are you allowed to enter a bar a drink up a storm before the bartender checks if you're of legal age....

[domer76]

In a land where its a law that only citizens are allowed to vote would it be insane to not have voters prove they are citizens.....
which, in turn, proves liberal Democrats are mentally defective and afflicted with Cognitive Dissonance

Its akin to not allowing police to demand drivers show their license to drive or concert goers to not be asked to show their tickets and
hundreds of other occasions where proof is required to show you belong there....its plain common sense.

Nope. Not akin.

[PostmodernProphet]

removing dead people from voting rolls disenfranchises an important demmycrat party voting block.........

[PostmodernProphet]

[SIZE=2]Non-citizens have no right to vote in the first place, so you're not taking anyone's right to vote....

how can anyone deny the logic of that statement?......