SCOTUS: Read AG Horne’s Prop. 200 oral arguments

Monday Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne brought the issue of our state’s Voting Rights Act — requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote — to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he argued on its behalf. Our earlier post and additional background can be viewed here.

The genesis of this issue goes back to 2004, when Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 to 830,467 – the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200.  The intent of the sound measure was to insure that only valid citizens participated in elections. On the heels of its passage, a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by liberal activist groups.

The complete 75-page transcript of the oral argument in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc. can be read here.

Audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after conference. We intend to post the audio when it becomes available.

8 Responses to SCOTUS: Read AG Horne’s Prop. 200 oral arguments

  1. eubykdisop says:

    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!

    • Frankly Speaking says:

      Yes. I thought Horne’s analogy regarding his airline ticket was a good one. Thanks SRAZ got posting this. Not knowing how these cases are conducted, reading this gives a good insight. Those female justices certainly interrupt a lot!

      • eubykdisop says:

        There can be a big difference between law and justice, Frankly Speaking, when Liberal judges have their finger in the pie!

  2. westnash says:

    I agree that proof of citizenship should be required to register and that proof the voter is that person in order to vote. Seems pretty simple.

    • LD 7 PC says:

      If you can register to vote online, at the library or at MVD, then send in a request for ongoing receipt of mail-in ballots, and finally….vote at your kitchen table, where does the authentication come into play? The entire process raises questions. T’was not always thus. This ease of voting opens up far too many possibilities for fraud. Having standards is not a hardship. It never was previously prior to the advent of mail-in ballots, and the only means of voting apart from the polling place was by requesting an absentee ballot that was brought to your home by your neighborhood deputy registrar, whose sworn duty it was to see that the ballot was received by the elections department within 24 hours of being voted. This process was used by the elderly, infirm or those who would be out of town on election day. The term “voter fraud” was unheard of. Minorities had no trouble voting, so that was never an issue. I worked polling places for years and was also a deputy registrar.

      • Westnash says:

        If that is all certainly leads to fraud. I would prefer to see real authentication take place at registration and a step tied to that be required for absentee type mail in voting. I am totally against the voting by party ballot.

  3. Arizona Conservative Guy says:

    I’m grateful for the extraordinary effort put forth by Attorney General Horne. He has gone to bat on behalf of the people of Arizona in numerous ways and has personally argued significant cases before the US Supreme Court. This one is another major undertaking. I read the entire transcript provided here over my late lunch hour and found Horne’s arguments to be compelling. It’s anyone’s guess what the Supremes will do, but he held his own. Make no mistake, the AZ Republic has him in its sights. The leftwing newspaper is intent on changing the political makeup of this state. The fact that Republicans hold every major state office and all the seats on the Corporation Commission is more than they can bear. Don’t let the newspaper win this seat for another Terry Goddard/Janet Napolitano liberal AG. Felecia Rotellini is Janet’s good buddy. She has filed again and her campaign chairman is Richard Carmona. The Dems mean business.

  4. eubykdisop says:

    Well, I dug in and read the transcript. After reading the comments by Kagan and Sotomayor I have come away more convinced than ever that election integrity is the number one issue we need to address nationally. What led me to that conclusion after reading their comments?

    The core issue in this case is the protection of the integrity of the voting process by assuring that only citizens vote. What were Kagan and Sotomayor focused on? A paper form! Their questions centered on the form!

    Now, neither Kagan nor Sotomayor are stupid. They know quite well what the issue is. Their focus on a form is obviously a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the central issue and steer it to something trivial and irrelevant!

    That, folks, is called “judicial activism”. This is a unique opportunity to see judicial activism at work. Usually we think of judicial activism in terms of creating new law through judicial interpretation; legislating from the bench. But here we see another aspect of judicial activism at work; seeking to direct deliberations into consideration of a minor, subordinate issue while ignoring the elephant in the living room!

    Furthermore, the Liberal Justices would have the state bear the burden of DISPROVING citizenship rather than having each prospective voter bear the burden of proving their citizenship. The costs to the taxpayers of Arizona of having government DISPROVE citizenship is enormous! In addition, the state must have GROUNDS for seeking to disprove citizenship. It can’t simply go on a fishing expedition.

    The performance of Kagan and Sotomayor exposes, in the clearest possible manner, how essential voter fraud is to the fate of Liberal Democrat candidates and THAT is why election integrity should be our number one focus!