Ninth Circus to revisit proof of citizenship for AZ voters

Integrity of elections merits another look

Last October, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals exhibited stunning contempt for the basic expectation of unblemished elections when ruling 2 – 1 that the National Voter Registration Act pre-empts Arizona’s 2004 Proposition 200 (Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act).The federal act requires states to make registration opportunities “widely available” by removing “obstacles” to voter registration.

Former U.S.Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an Arizonan, temporarily sat on the panel and was part of the majority decision. O’Connor and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, dissented.

Now, the nation’s most overturned court has agreed to rehear the case “en banc” before an 11-judge panel and reconsider the previous decision to strike down Arizona’s requirement that residents provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote and show proof of identity at the polls on Election Day

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees state elections said “The previous decision by the Ninth Circuit was an outrage, and I thought was a slap in the face to Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections. Opposition to the simple act of providing proof that you are legally eligible to participate in our elections is incomprehensible.”

Bennett has vowed to defend Prop. 200 in the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.  Arizona was the first state to require voters to show proof of citizenship, but Kansas and Georgia have recently enacted similar laws. An Appeals Court ruling would not impact the other states, although a Supreme Court ruling would.

National Voter Registration Act creates a standard federal registration form for all states. It requires applicants to sign a statement that they are citizens, but requires no proof. Prop. 200 requires applicants, regardless of whether they are submitting a federal registration form or a state one, to provide a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, tribal identification or naturalization certification number.

A hearing date has yet to be scheduled.

Since last year’s general election, new registrations have soared statewide to 3,209,725.  As of April 22, 2011 the number of voters who have registered as “Independent” or have not designated a party preference has risen by 48,023 to 1,030,500, while Republicans have added 10,243. Democrats have increased by 4,187. Libertarians make up a little less than one percent of the state’s total registration with 24,941, while those registered with the Green Party stands at 5,105.

The guarantee of secure elections is a fundamental expectation of each and every voting citizen. We should accept nothing less — regardless of what Sandra O’Connor thinks.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Ninth Circus to revisit proof of citizenship for AZ voters

  1. TeaPartyPatriot says:

    “National Voter Registration Act creates a standard federal registration form for all states. It requires applicants to sign a statement that they are citizens, but requires no proof.”

    Seems like boehner and the House GOP needs to vote to correct this travesty. Even though the d-crat socialists will vote down any changes in the Senate and beyond, it still wold be a good thing for voters to see who supports true democracy and who supports fraud. After the 2012 elections, it can then be unanimously approved by the House, Senate and new President.

  2. American Pride says:

    Could there actually be a chance for some sanity and lucidity from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals???????

    http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=116210498400272

  3. Jane says:

    Something needs to be done about the ninth circuit court.

  4. Jill H says:

    Amazing that Sandra O’Connor was called in to judge at the 9th Circuit Court. Her deciding vote in the Roe v. Wade case firmly established her liberal bias. What kind of “insider trading” is going on here?

    • Tyler M says:

      Jill-

      O’Connor wasn’t even on the Supreme Court yet when Roe v. Wade was decided. And the horrible travesty that is Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 margin, so there were actually 3 “deciding” votes.

      But Ronald Reagan appointee, Sandra Day O’Connor almost always voted with the other pro-life justices on the Supreme Court until when she was closer to retirement & decided to completely go off the liberal deep end.

      It was Justice Kennedy who surprised many by voting in favor of unborn infant homicide in the cases that came before the Supreme Court that had the best chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.

      In the end though, O’Connor did become a complete & total lib & that’s why we are waiting to see what the Supreme Court might have to eventually do now to overturn her moronic liberal & anti-American opinion in the Prop 200 case.

      O’Connor decided that it was more important to be popular & loved by the media than to do what is right. I can’t stand her & here in Pima County, we have to deal with her liberal sister every day as she masquerades as a Republican on the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

  5. Kathy says:

    Dems must be getting really desperate. They’ve got to gin up their voter reg drive with illegals, because they are losing LEGAL citizen voters in droves.

  6. Kimball says:

    Any American citizen desiring to vote should be proud to show basic identification in order to cast a ballot. You have to do so in order to cash a check at the grocery store. Liberals love making the absolutely appropriate reek of intrusion.

  7. Scott says:

    Sandra O’Connor is apty named. She certainly ‘conned’ President Ronald Reagan into thinking she was a conservative when he appointed her as the first woman to the US Supreme Court. Nothing could be further from the truth. She doesn’t have a conservative bone in her body.

  8. Villanova says:

    There has been talk of dividing the jurisdictional area of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for years. It encompasses Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington. There is little some of these areas have in common, other than the fact that the judges enjoy traveling to Hawaii from their base in San Francisco. They hail from the various states in the circuit. Several are Arizonans who travel to California, while keeping offices here, in the courthouse named for defector Sandra Day O’Connor.

    Federal judges have lifetime appointments. Not a bad gig.