Of course the undecided might be swayed, but there is media on both sides of the debate. You can't have a negative campaign unless you have some negatives to work with

SCOTUS just decided that States cannot require voters to be citizens
SCOTUS Strikes Down AZ Voter-ID Law - The Daily Beast

No one has to prove they are citizens to register and vote. Scalia ,writing for the majority said that Arizona's law was preempted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidently that law doesn't require citizenship to be eligible to vote.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

Hello again, tom:

I'll have to read it.. It sounds like the RIGHT decision based on the WRONG reasoning. Kind of like Obamacare, huh? Those Supremes... Got to love 'em.

excon

I can see where the right would want to eliminate minorities and poor people from voting. Loss of total social, and economic domination is a humbling experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I can see where the right would want to eliminate minorities and poor people from voting. Loss of total social, and economic domination is a humbling experience.

---

Don't be ridiculous . All we ever asked was for someone voting to prove they were eligible .

Well do it constitutionally. Ain't you guys tired of losing in court over this?

So in other words, states can set requirements but can't determine if they're satisfied.

Yeah that makes sense.

Hello Steve:

If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, what possible requirement could you come up with?

excon

I'm waiting to download and find the time to read his majority opinion. But if the Motor voter law does not require proof of citizenship then there is something REALLY wrong with it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So in other words, states can set requirements but can't determine if they're satisfied.

Yeah that makes sense.

---

Makes sense that your requirements meet constitutional ones right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, what possible requirement could you come up with?

excon

---

Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.

Quote:

---

Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.

---

Or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Well do it constitutionally. Ain't you guys tired of losing in court over this?

---

Arizona has had this requirement since 1912, it took 101 years to say it wasn't constitutional?

Quote:

---

or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .

---

This is the level of discourse here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This is the level of discourse here?

---

Apparently so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This is the level of discourse here?

---

It's as legit a comment as Tal's barb about us not wanting minorities to vote.

Even the respondents in the case acknowledged the requirements to be eligible to vote, you just can't enforce it. As long as you pinkie swear you're a citizen that's good enough for the left, although if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.

---

You'd be an American, maybe with dual citizenship.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.

---

Not me. I WANT Ted Cruz to run.

Excon

You don't and the ruling that struck down the Arizona law was 7-2. Okay I know you guys here may not be the ones my "barbs" are aimed at, but you have to admit republican activities haven't done that well in the courts. This one though if you read the 93 federal law is pretty explicit about registration without citizenship papers, because citizenship is required for most federal programs and benefits already.

Arizona can and has challenged registrations 88% of whom failed to be thrown out and only 19 cases of fraud out of two million were found.

Justices strike down citizenship provision in Arizona voter law - CNN.com

Quote:

---

But in a nod to state authority, Scalia said the federal law "does not prevent states from denying registration based on any information in their possession establishing the applicant's eligibility."

---

The burden of proof lies with the state to prove a person is not a citizen, and not on the citizen to prove he IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You don't and the ruling that struck down the Arizona law was 7-2. Okay I know you guys here may not be the ones my "barbs" are aimed at, but you have to admit republican activities haven't done that well in the courts. This one though if you read the 93 federal law is pretty explicit about registration without citizenship papers, because citizenship is required for most federal programs and benefits already.

Arizona can and has challenged registrations 88% of whom failed to be thrown out and only 19 cases of fraud out of two million were found.

Justices strike down citizenship provision in Arizona voter law - CNN.com



The burden of proof lies with the state to prove a person is not a citizen, and not on the citizen to prove he IS.

---

As I said, Arizona has had that requirement for 101 years. Can you please explain to me the logic in having requirements while banning any mechanism to ensure those requirements are satisfied?