|
The
Heritage Foundation
Morning
Bell: 3 Things You Should Know About
the Supreme Court and Voter ID
By Amy Payne
June 18, 2013
Yesterday,
the Supreme Court handed down one of
its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure
requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Media reports
are
already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal
expert Hans
von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision.
1.
This is not a voter ID decision - This
decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting. Von
Spakovsky explains:
In
2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved
a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person
voting and a
requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of
citizenship. The
voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and
well in
Arizona. (emphasis added)
Although
it did not strike down the provision
that requires a photo ID for in-person voting, von Spakovsky said “the
Supreme
Court came down on the wrong side of election integrity” with this
ruling.
2.
Federal law already mandates that a person
must be a U.S. citizen to vote.
The
Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring
proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to
vote only
if they are citizens.
The
Court ruled the way it did because there is
already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S.
citizens
when they register to vote. Most people register using the federal
mail-in form
under the “Motor Voter” law. The majority of the justices said that
federal
requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the
federal
law comes first.
But
Arizona residents can register to vote
using the federal form or a state form. Von Spakovsky notes that
“Arizona can
continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using
the
state form.”
3.
States do determine the qualifications of
their voters.
If
Arizona has information about a voter that
shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides
who is a
legitimate voter.
Von
Spakovsky says:
The
Court specifically noted that under our
Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the
qualifications
of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to
anyone who
submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession
that
establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.
Making
sure that only U.S. citizens are voting
is vital to the integrity of American elections. This Supreme Court
decision
basically kept the status quo, and meanwhile, voting reforms are needed.
For
the rest of this article and more, click
here
|
