Voter ID law BLOCKED...

Discussion in 'Community Campfire' started by DutchmanAZ, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. :frusty:
    Appellate Court Blocks Enforcement of Arizona Voter ID Law
    October 6th, 2006 @ 6:15am
    by Associated Press
    A federal appellate court on Thursday blocked enforcement of a 2004 state law requiring Arizona voters to present identification when casting ballots and to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals without comment granted a motion by critics of the law for an injunction that bars enforcement of the law's voter identification requirements during the Nov. 7 general election.

    It also bars enforcement of a requirement that people produce specified proof of citizenship to register to vote. The deadline to register to vote in the general election is midnight Monday.

    State Attorney General Terry Goddard said in a statement he plans to ask the full 9th Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

    Secretary of State Jan Brewer, who has defended the law as a protection against voter fraud, said she hopes the decision is reversed ``very quickly.''

    ``I'm very concerned about the confusion that this potentially will create in the upcoming election, with the retraining of all the poll workers and the re-education of the public so close to Nov. 7,'' Brewer said.

    The 9th Circuit order was issued by two of the San Francisco-based court's judges. It said the injunction would remain in effect pending the court's resolution of the plaintiffs' appeals, a process that lawyers said could take months.

    ``This order would certainly run past the Nov. 7 general election,'' said David Rosenbaum, an attorney for the challengers.

    The 2004 law, which appeared on that year's ballot as Proposition 200, requires that voters at polling places produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification specified by the law.

    The challengers contend the voting provisions would disenfranchise numerous voters, particularly minorities and the elderly, and that requiring voters to acquire and produce identification would be burdensome in time, money and effort. They also contend it hinders voter registration drives.

    ``The courts ruling will help ensure the fundamental right to vote for tens of thousands of Arizonans who otherwise would have faced unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal and state elections,'' the challengers said in a statement. ``For those voters who cannot meet its strict and unnecessary requirements, Proposition 200 imposes a 21st century poll tax by requiring that voters purchase acceptable forms of identification.''

    Randy Pullen, the former chairman of Yes on Proposition 200 and currently the Republican Party's national committeeman for Arizona, blamed the decision on ``activist'' judges in the 9th Circuit.

    ``It shows you why it's so important to have President Bush appointing judges that aren't going to decide they know more about what the people want than the people do,'' Pullen said.

    Ever since it passed in 2004, Arizona's voter ID law has been challenged in federal court by numerous groups including the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the League of Women Voters, the Navajo Nation, the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, the Arizona Advocacy Network and the Mexican-American Legal and Educational Fund.

    A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix on Sept. 11 refused to prohibit election officials from enforcing the registration and polling place identification requirements, and its provisions were enforced one day later during the state's Sept. 12 primary election.

    Other parts of the 2004 law dealt with ineligibility of illegal immigrants to receive some government services and benefits.

    Brewer said the people of Arizona voted overwhelmingly to require identification at the polls. She said the first statewide use of the requirement in the September primary ``went off without a hitch'' and the decision couldn't have come at a worse time.

    ``One million of them voted for it and will be very concerned and alarmed that all of a sudden it has been changed,'' Brewer said. ``So we have a huge job in front of us .. to work very diligently to see this is overturned as soon as possible and implemented as it was intended by the voters of Arizona.

    source: http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=235312
    What a crock of heifer dust.....
     
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, the 9th Circuit Court of Appleheads is in San Francisco I believe.


    And is the above statement in itself not a valid explination of the thought processes behind their rulings and the affects/effects of those rulings.


    That particular court being the ones who allowed USO to wreck havoc on last years fall hunts.


    Why/How in the world does Arizona get to be included with anything involved with the great world of southern Kali land??
    Might it not be better if we were under a court from say Montana, or Wyoming, New Mexico, Or practically any of the other western states including Arizona.


    I say we get together with all the other western states and build a fence around southern Kali land, And give those poor folks in northern California something to look forward to.


    Shane
     

  3. The 9th is also the one that upheld USO's lawsuit against AZ Game and Fish for equal opportunity at our elk and deer tags.
     
  4. Funny - Some how I missed this

    One for the good guys....

    source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1020scotus-voterID20-ON.html


    Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections
    Amanda Crawford
    The Arizona Republic
    Oct. 20, 2006 03:44 PM


    Arizona voters will have to present identification at the polls on Nov. 7 after all.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona can go ahead with requiring voters to present a photo ID, starting with next month's general election, as part of the Proposition 200 that voters passed in 2004. The ruling overturns an Oct. 5 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the voter ID rules on hold this election cycle.

    The Supreme Court on Friday did not decide whether the new voter ID rules are constitutional. That decision is still pending in federal district court

    Instead, the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction.

    "The facts in these cases are hotly contested and 'no bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements,' " the Justices wrote. "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules."

    The new voter ID rules were passed, in part, to keep illegal immigrants and other non-citizens from voting. Opponents have argued that legal voters, especially the poor and the elderly, might also be disenfranchised because of the rules.

    In order to cast a ballot at the polls, voters must show a photo ID with current street address or two forms of identification, such as a utility bill or car registration, with name and street address
     
  5. Now if can get the Supreme Court to flush the 9th circut we will be OK.. You think after everything that gets overturned from the 9th, they would figure out that they are idiots and need to be replaced.

    Until then its nice to know that the Supremes have their heads screwed on somewhat straight.