Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Great Supreme Court News (for voter fraud and open borders)

Great Supreme Court News (for voter fraud and open borders)

States not permitted to alter federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

The Supreme Court today refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote.

Such proof is particularly important given how freely many states are handing out drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and the Obama administration’s unilateral implementation of quasi-amnesty deferrals (some of which were stopped in court). It’s just not enough anymore that someone is here legally (or at least, is not being deported).

The Petition for Certiorari and other filings in Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission are here. The 10th Circuit decision is here.

ScotusBlog summarized the issues:

Issue: (1) Whether Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to defer to the states’ determination that provision of documentary evidence of citizenship is necessary to enforce the states’ voter qualifications; and (2) whether Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permit a dual voter rolls system in which some voters who are qualified to vote for federal office holders are not also qualified to vote for those “in the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”

Bloomberg Politics reports on the development:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider letting states require evidence of citizenship when people register to vote for federal elections, rejecting an appeal from Arizona and Kansas.

The rebuff is a victory for the Obama administration and voting- and minority-rights groups that battled the two states in court. It leaves intact a decision by a U.S. agency that blocked the states from requiring proof of citizenship for voters in federal elections.

It’s the second high court defeat on the issue for Arizona. The state has a law that requires evidence of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that it couldn’t be enforced when people use a standard registration document known as the “federal form” to register to vote for Congress and the president.

That 7-2 ruling left open the possibility that Arizona could impose its requirements through a different avenue. The court said the state could submit a request to the agency that developed the form, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, asking it to tell Arizona voters they needed to supply proof of citizenship.

Prof. Rick Hansen at Election Law Blog writes that this was a power struggle between the feds and the states:

This is a very big deal. Kobach had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states. The question was whether the states of AZ and KS could force the federal government to require citizenship documentation to accompany the universal federal form for voter registration. This is a huge win for those who want to see a greater federal role and uniformity in elections. My earlier coverage of Kobach v. EAC is here.

Uniformity in elections has implications. One of which is that states will have a more difficult time preserving the integrity of federal elections in their states.

Non-citizens voting is not a trivial problem:

A new study by two Old Dominion University professors, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterms. Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic, they cite Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race as one likely tipped by non-citizen voting. As a senator, Franken cast the 60th vote needed to make Obamacare law.

The authors of that study wrote:

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes
including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

(More here)

This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

CloseTheFed | June 29, 2015 at 1:24 pm

My God, when will SCOTUS choose the side of Americans? They are determined to kill us off, and make us pack mules for illegal aliens. When I think of the taxes I pay to support the hoardes who have invaded, I become angry.

This is even more disgusting than Burwell.

I’m getting the impression that a lot of us just are not welcome in the U.S. any longer.

Our democratically elected representatives pass laws that are perfectly rational and consistent with the Constitution, and they are simply mowed down by elitists in D.C.

This could lead to a problem…

Midwest Rhino | June 29, 2015 at 2:42 pm

The feds are defending our borders and voting process. It’s just that they are acting as defense for the invading foreign nationals, against America. They take states or Sheriffs to court if any effort is made to stem the tide.

Come down to the waters edge and be baptized … in US entitlements. We just need a big Rio de Janeiro style statue at the Rio Grande, of Jesus with open arms, but with Obama’s image, facing Mexico.

Very well. I believe I understand the intent of this ruling.

Since we live near the border and I’m not privy to the details of their births, if my housemates (both of whom have clearly reached legal age when converted to human years) decide they want to vote, I’ll advise them to use federal registration forms. I trust they’ll do the right thing.

If the individuals in the SCOTUS have absconded their Constitutional duty to secure our borders via Article IV section 3-4, then its time we invoke and assert our Ordaining Powers per the Preamble of the Constitution and declare their powers void.

We the People…

    Paul in reply to Aucturian. | June 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Sorry, accidental down-vote

    Let’s try the (hopefully) blood-free approach of an Article V Convention first.

Sadly, perhaps the state should allow a public commission to design the form instead

True voter suppression occurs when a valid vote is countered by a FRAUDULENT vote.

Just like the GOP establishment, the Supreme Court is controlled by big business and political correctness.

whats the worst that could happen if states ignored this and local sheriffs protected the states citizens?

And the lunacy continues. Might as well take our chances with Article V before things really go south [pun intended, all the way to Central America].

When is the Mayflower sailing, and where is it headed? I wanna go.

I don’t believe SCOTUS is thinking it through. When US dissolves, who inherits our nukes?

This may be the most important Supreme Court decision of all time. It means nothing less than the Death of the Republic. The Democrats will use this to flood the polls with illegals, and create a Democrat Dictatorship.

Armed Counterrevolution is now inevitable. That will inevitably result in the loss of The Constitution, but it has already been lost. Rather a Right Wing Dictatorship than a Left Wing one.

We must take massive retribution on the Enemy after we retake the government.

The 10th circuit decision rested, in part, on the fact that “the Executive Director’s decision discussed in significant detail no fewer than five alternatives to requiring documentary evidence of citizenship that states can use to ensure that noncitizens do not register using the Federal Form. Kobach and Bennett do not dispute that these means exist, and merely contend that they are overly onerous.” Does anyone know what these five alternatives were, and whether AZ and KS will try to adopt them?

Alternatively, just because AZ must “accept” and “use” the federal form that is missing important information, doesn’t mean they have to register the voters. They can accept them for what they show, and follow up by asking the voter for the information that they don’t show.

Or how about this: Is there any reason AZ can’t make it a requirement for voters to have been a citizen for at least 7 days (or 7 years, but for this purpose 7 days will do) before the date of registration? The federal form doesn’t have anything about that, so surely the USEAC would either have to alter the form, or the state could demand supplemental information.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend