SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court: No proof of citizenship required — sort of

 

emilybazelon@gmail.com

By a surprising 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court this week struck down a bristly little ballot initiative that Arizona passed in 2004, requiring everyone who registers to vote to prove his or her citizenship. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and he had everyone on board except Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

Voter-ID laws, including this one about voter registration from Arizona, are all about partisan politics. They pit Republicans who say they’re worried about voter fraud against Democrats who want to make it easier, not harder, for people to vote. These state-driven initiatives are especially bad for minority voters, and the young, poor or disabled — groups that tend to stay off the rolls in larger numbers when there are more hoops to jump through.

And so it’s heartening to see seven justices join hands. They stood behind a simple federal form for voter registration and tossed out Arizona’s more burdensome alternative. In other words, they made it easier for people to vote and sided with federal over state power. At his next Federalist Society event, Scalia will have some explaining to do.

In 1993 Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, which created a federal form for voter registration. It’s pretty simple: To prove your citizenship, you just have to swear to it. Voters in Arizona, along with three other states, found this shockingly loosey-goosey.

In part to combat voter fraud, they passed a ballot initiative in 2004 requiring someone who wanted to register to vote to provide a copy of a passport, birth certificate, driver’s license number (if the license verifies your citizenship), or other evidence of naturalization or membership in an Indian tribe.

It turns out that there have been only two cases since 2000 in Arizona in which noncitizens tried to cast votes. In other words, there’s almost no real voter fraud to fight. But that’s not what the Supreme Court focused on. The decision is all about what Congress meant when it instructed the states to “accept and use” the federal voter registration form created by the NVRA, and whether it had the power to boss Arizona around in the first place. The answer to the second question, Scalia says for the court, is yes. Scalia says, quoting an 1880 case, that the power of Congress to make the rules for federal elections “is paramount.” Since Congress knows this, it has more power to push aside state law in this area than it usually has — in lawyerspeak, more power to pre-empt state laws. In the majority’s view, since Congress has the power to remake the rules, it can order the states to “accept and use” the NVRA’s voter registration use, and that means Arizona can’t then add on its own proof-of-citizenship requirement when people submit the NVRA form. OK, all good — except for one thing: Justice Clarence Thomas is right that the states get to decide who may vote in federal elections. This state authority lies in another part of the Constitution. (For House elections, look in Article I. For Senate elections, it’s in the 17th Amendment.) Doesn’t that mean Arizona can in fact require aspiring voters to be citizens, as it has since becoming a state in 1912?

Here is the neat answer Scalia comes up with: Yes, Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote — the state just can’t do it by passing a law superseding the federal form. Instead, Arizona has to go to the federal Election Assistance Commission to ask for a change to the federal form. If the EAC turns Arizona down, the state can sue.

Arizona hasn’t done this yet, but the court says the state still could. Never mind, as Alito points out, that the EAC has no actual commissioners at the moment. Arizona still has to try to compel the agency to act.

Alabama, Georgia and Kansas have laws just like Arizona’s. So those state laws also get thrown onto the garbage heap. And actually, it’s becoming something of a pile. Since 2003, courts have either thrown out or delayed photo ID requirements in at least five states.

The politics, too, are finally starting to shift away from the trumped-up GOP drive against voter fraud. In Minnesota, voters for the first time rejected a voter-ID law in 2012.

Semi-related: In Florida, after an uproar about the long lines and wait times last November, the state restored early voting days that had been cut. And in Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker recently gave up his push to get rid of same-day voter registration. A lot of the voter-ID laws that spruced up versions of the voter ID laws that were on hold in the last election will probably be enforced next time around, including in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Eleven states require photo ID to vote, and 19 states impose other kinds of requirements.

This week’s Supreme Court ruling doesn’t change any of that. It knocks down four states’ extra requirements for one form of voter registration. But to actually show up and cast a ballot, in a lot of places, you still have to prove who you are.

© 2013, Slate

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  • CONGRESS

    Senators earn an ‘A’ for sexual assault bill

    Sen. Marco Rubio doesn’t have much time for Democrats. But he does have two daughters. And so it was that Wednesday morning, he found himself standing in solidarity with a bipartisan group of senators that included Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill as they announced legislation to curb the scourge of sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

  •  
 <span class="cutline_leadin">HARASSMENT:</span> Members of the Ladies in White opposition movement, relatives of imprisoned dissidents who draw inspiration from their faith, were arrested during a peaceful march in Havana last month.

    HUMAN RIGHTS

    Support religious freedom in Cuba

    This year marks the 55th anniversary of Cuba’s current government and July 26 commemorated the 61st anniversary of the revolution which swept it into power. After coming to power, the Castro government broke its pro-democracy pledges and, despite recent improvements, maintains a problematic record on human rights, including religious freedom.

  •  
SOLOW

    MIGRANT CRISIS

    Easy fix to offer relief to immigration courts

    Much has been written about the strain placed on the immigration court system by the recent influx of minors from Central America. A little known fact about the Immigration Court system, unlike every court in the land, virtually no immigration court cases are resolved without a hearing.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category