Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

March 18, 2013

Whether Arizona may require proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections when federal law does not.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the ultimate authority for regulating federal elections. As part of that authority, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA, more commonly known as the "motor voter" law). The goal of the law was to make voter registration more convenient and accessible. By creating a registration form that all states must "accept and use," the law enabled the expansion of mail-in registration and voter registration drives.

Anyone seeking to register to vote using the federal form must sign a statement swearing that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Nonetheless, in 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires prospective voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship–such as a birth certificates, passports or Native American tribal ID cards not actually used in Arizona–in order to register to vote.

Nationwide, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, approximately 13 million Americans do not possess documentary proof of their citizenship. Birth certificates were often not issued to U.S. citizens such Native Americans born on reservations, and those born at home or delivered by midwives during the 1930s and 1940s. In addition, women, who often change their names upon marriage, are far less likely to possess a birth certificate or other documents accurately reflecting their names. These documents are expensive and often difficult to acquire. Under Proposition 200, those who lack the required documents will either have to pay to procure them or be unable to vote.

Along with other civil rights groups, the ACLU challenged Proposition 200 as inconsistent with federal law. The Ninth Circuit court found that Proposition 200 conflicted with the NVRA, and that the NVRA takes precedence over state law. Arizona appealed this ruling, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the state has the power to impose such a requirement beyond what the federal law permits. Oral arguments will take place on March 18, 2013, with a decision expected to follow in June 2013.

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/arizona-v-inter-tribal-council-arizona

that one re "'This is a Crazy System': Justices Ridicule Ease-of-Voting Law"
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/this-is-a-crazy-system-justices-ridicule-ease-of-voting-law/274127/ [with comments] .. just after 102 year-old Desiline Victor .. bit under halfway down in yours ..

--------

This re a comment in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Nw5V3a2Z0

that Judicial Review was not constitutional .. just above Desiline Victor in yours ..

JUDICIAL REVIEW

The Establishment of Judicial Review

Judicial review is one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law. It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed. But it is hardly noteworthy that its legitimacy has been challenged from the first, and, while now accepted generally, it still has detractors and its supporters disagree about its doctrinal basis and its application. Although it was first asserted in Marbury v. Madison to strike down an act of Congress as inconsistent with the Constitution, judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall. The concept had been long known, having been utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters, and there were several instances known to the Framers of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

much more .. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/21-judicial-review.html