AZ AG Horne argues Voting Rights Act to SCOTUS

Protecting the integrity of elections

Today is the day that Arizona’s argument supporting voter integrity will be heard, as Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne takes the case State of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona before the justices of the United States Supreme Court at 10 a.m.  He will be allotted thirty minutes to make his presentation.

As a review: In 2004, Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 – 830,467 —  the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200 — a commonsense measure intended to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting in elections. On the heels of its passage, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by liberal activist groups.

After Arizona citizens passed the referendum, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the first part of the referendum was pre-empted by Federal law. This ruling came in tandem with an intentionally misleading brief from the Civil Rights Division of Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Hans A. von Spakovsky writing for National Review provides excellent background.

Sandra O’Connor — the left-of-center “cowgirl from Arizona,” who duped conservative Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he appointed her to the U.S. Supreme Court — sat on the Ninth Circuit panel that gutted the law.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne requested an “en banc rehearing” of the matter, in which an 11-judge panel reconsiders the ruling issued by the three-judge panel. He personally argued the case. The Court ruled that requiring voter I.D. on Election Day is permissible, but that Arizona could not ask for evidence of citizenship when people register to vote. Instead, the Court ruled that Arizona would have to trust the signature on the form affirming they are citizens.

This March 4, 2013 commentary by Attorney General Tom Horne was originally printed as a “My Turn“ piece in the daily. Titled “Preclearance of voting laws now irrational,” it provides key information regarding the Arizona’s voting rights issue.

Yesterday, that same newspaper ran “High court should help Arizona protect elections,” by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett — whose office oversees elections — in which he writes, “…citizenship is the foundation from which eligibility is derived. Proposition 200 protects election integrity by ensuring voter eligibility. Requiring evidence of citizenship at the time of registration is an important safeguard against non-citizen voter fraud. Otherwise, the only protection would be the applicant’s sworn statement that they are a citizen. Do we believe that someone who would falsely claim citizenship on the federal voter-registration form would also commit voter fraud in an election? Is that fair to the voters who legally cast a ballot? Don’t they have a right to a fair and fraud-free election?

Our political process depends on a system of elections that empowers citizens with the ability to exercise their most fundamental of rights: the right to vote. It is the role of government to provide voters with a sense of confidence in the voting system.”

Secretary of State Bennett is correct. Godspeed Attorney General Horne.  Arizona’s citizens are fortune to have these two principled men serving in state office.

10 Responses to AZ AG Horne argues Voting Rights Act to SCOTUS

  1. Delilah says:

    This is the 3rd time AG Horne has gone before the Supremes, I wish him luck.

  2. Kent says:

    Tom Horne is doing a masterful job attempting to protect the reliability of our elections. Those who oppose a trustworthy system of checking ID are in support of fraudulent voting. Contingents of young Hispanic Democrat operatives (many jave been reported to be under voting age themselves) are going into predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods and registering previously unregistered voters, many who are not even English speakers. They carry forms requesting early ballots. Then they return and pick up the ballots which they have the new registrants sign, and vote them for the never before registered “new voter.” If this sounds like a massive problem, it is! Fraud is rampant.

    • American Dad says:

      As has been previously noted by many, identification is needed to cash a check or rent a video. There is no earthly reason to eliminate an ID component in our voting process.

  3. Louise Ann says:

    I dread the decision to come from this Court. Obama Care wouldn’t be pushing us to ruin if it were not for the “Conservative” on the Court. Just wait until the U.S. uses the Cyprus trick. Any good news today?

  4. MacBeth says:

    Obama’s US Justice Department under Eric Holder did not prosecute the New Black Panther’s who stood outside polling places with billy clubs, intimidating and harassing white voters. Holder dismissed all charges against them. This is an atrocious ethnic divide functioning with Obama’s approval. This same group of thugs put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin death, clearly showing they have no respect for the law.

    • eubykdisop says:

      “Vindication: IG Confirms Lies, Racism Rampant Inside Holder Justice Department”

      “But we also had a court victory. Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled in a JW FOIA lawsuit seeking Black Panther records that the documents we had thus far uncovered “appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony [before the commission] that political leadership was not involved” in the decision to dismiss the NBPP case.”

      “Perez, it should go without saying, must resign and take himself out of the running for Secretary of Labor. We’ve documented Perez’s big lie on no political appointees being involved in the decision to drop much of the Black Panther case. And we are vindicated in this analysis by the OIG report:”

      “In his OIG interview, Perez said he did not believe that these incidents [of political appointee involvement – including Holder’s!] constituted political appointees being “involved” in the decision. We believe that these facts evidence “involvement” in the decision by political appointees within the ordinary meaning of that word, and that Perez’s acknowledgment, in his statements on behalf of the Department, that political appointees were briefed on and could have overruled this decision did not capture the full extent of that involvement.”

  5. East Valley PC says:

    Yet in an outrageous and unprovoked move, the Obama/Holder politically motivated U.S. Justice Department announced it would monitor elections in Maricopa County. Remember? Federal observers were dispatched “to watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations” to ensure compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

  6. Brandy Baron says:

    The opposition will be on our senate lawn tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1pm to spew their lame excuses for why they are such losers that they shouldn’t be expected to have ID. They plan to go inside and spout off to our legislators at 2pm. I recommend using the links on their page to contact the legislators and make our own statements…–dSm85lu9GVY2mlNeTKc2FKiELzd2hptC9SuXEbo1qQa2NMdoyXmMWJoGG4upX8W2G8Y5_

    • Brandy Baron says:

      If we had mailings like theirs we could rally our troops much easier. Why don’t we?

  7. eubykdisop says:

    The fact that this case has to go to SCOTUS is a joke! Why?

    If you want to get a passport, you have to prove that you are a U. S. citizen. The U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs states:

    “Unacceptable Documents”

    “The following will not be accepted as secondary evidence of U.S. citizenship:”

    “•Voter registration card
    •Army discharge paper
    •Social Security Card”

    One must be a citizen to vote. One must also be a citizen to obtain a U. S. passport. You can vote with a voter registration card but a voter registration card is deemed to be an “unacceptable document” for the purpose of proving citizenship in order to obtain a U. S. passport!

    So what the Obama administration is saying is that you can vote if you are not a proven citizen but you can’t get a passport if you are not a proven citizen even though both voting and obtaining a U. S. passport equally require that one be a U. S. citizen!

    That inconsistently applied legal requirement constitutes prima facie evidence of a POLICY on the part of the Obama administration of promoting and facilitating voter fraud for political gain!

%d bloggers like this: