Civil and Human Rights

Supreme Court takes up voter rights again

WASHINGTON — Voter rights were back on the agenda at the Supreme Court as the nation’s top court took up a controversial law that requires stringent proof of citizenship for voter registration.

 

At issue is an Arizona law that aims to block illegal immigrants from casting ballots by demanding proof well beyond what is required under federal law of those seeking to inscribe their names on voter lists.

 

The latest legal bout comes just weeks after the Supreme Court heard arguments over — and appeared poised to overturn, at least in part — the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires nine mainly southern states and local governments in seven other states to obtain Justice Department approval for any changes in their electoral codes.

 

Arizona, in the US southwest on the border with Mexico, has butted heads with Washington several times over its immigration initiatives. But four other states, including Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have enacted similar laws, and 12 more states are working on doing the same.

 

The nine Supreme Court judges seemed split on the issue, with some saying the signed affidavit on the form was sufficient, while others suggesting the extra proof from official documents was preferable.

 

Ultra-conservative judge Antonin Scalia was among the latter group, saying that “a statement under oath is not a proof at all.”

 

The conservative justice Samuel Alito also chimed in to disparage what he called a “crazy system.”

 

But the federal government, in a brief filed in favor of striking down the Arizona law, argued that it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

If Arizona is allowed to require documents proving citizenship beyond what is required at a national level, “each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form,” the government said.

 

Analyst Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said a majority of the Court “appeared to recognize that the entire point of having a single Federal form was to streamline the voter registration process.

 

“Approving Arizona’s law would pave the way for a patchwork of 50 state forms,” he said.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans