SCOTUS Rules Against AZ Voting Law


The court has gone with the liberals yet again.
Check it out:

Just right before the program started the Supreme Court has said that Arizona’s proof of citizenship law is illegal. I haven’t even seen the opinion. All I’ve seen is news stories on it. I have not had a chance to delve into it. On the surface it appears to be one of these things that’s infuriating, yet it’s a 7-2 decision. Justice Scalia voted with the majority. And apparently the whole thing is that federal law trumps state law when it comes to federal elections and the states can’t say anything about it. Scalia basically says, “Look, the states are using federal forms in elections, and there really isn’t an issue here, that Arizona, no other state can trump federal law when it comes to federal elections.”

So if the Feds down the road ultimately require no evidence of citizenship, then that could end up being a problem. But as I understand — this is really premature, folks. This ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time in terms of show prep for me today in terms of being able to delve into it. Really all I have here are the news stories. I’ve got two, one from AP and this one is from Doomberg, and Doomberg is the better of the two.

“The US Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law that required evidence of citizenship when people register to vote, in a victory for minority-rights advocates and the Obama administration. The justices, voting 7-2, said Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law runs afoul of a federal statute that sets out registration requirements.”



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.


Previous post

Federal Alerts Have Invaded Your Phone

Next post

Since When are Democrats Interested in What's Best for the GOP?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.