SCOTUS Rejects Arizona Voter Suppression Law...

[ProSense]

SCOTUS Rejects Arizona Voter Suppression Law UPDATED

by alaprst

I don't know if anyone has diaried about this, but I couldn't help but noticing this piece about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was easily overshadowed by the actions on President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act and Arizona's "Papers Please" law.
Here's what pr watch reported:

In a little-noticed ruling amidst clamor over the healthcare decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, holding it was preempted by the National Voting Registration Act (NVRA). The law was adopted as a "model" bill by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2008.

It may not have received the notice "papers please" and the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling got, but the significance of this ruling cannot be overrstated...

The prwatch piece continues:

Arizona Proposition 200 became law in 2004 and required election officials to reject voter registration forms that did not include documentation proving citizenship. Critics said that there was no evidence that illegal immigrants attempted to vote in state or federal elections and the real intent of the law was to shut down community voter registration drives.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/30/1104766/-SCOTUS-Rejects-Arizona-Voter-Suppression-Law

Supreme Court Declines to Block Important Voter Registration Ruling

The Supreme Court today denied an application by the State of Arizona to put on hold an April ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc found that voter registration provisions of Arizona's Proposition 200 violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), and that Arizona cannot reject federal mail-in voter registration applications if they do not include documentary proof of citizenship.

While Arizona can still seek Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit decision, today's Supreme Court's decision makes it unlikely that the Court would grant such a request. The case, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona v. State of Arizona, stems from a 2006 lawsuit brought on behalf of the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, State Senator Steve Gallardo, the Arizona Advocacy Network , the League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona, the Hopi Tribe, and the League of Women Voters of Arizona, by attorneys from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and the law firms of Osborne Maledon, Steptoe & Johnson and the Sparks Law Firm.

Read the Supreme Court Order

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/newsroom/clips?id=0560

[freshwest]

1. Take that, GOP.

[rhett o rick]

2. Thanks for posting. nm

[SidDithers]

3. DU Rec...nt

Sid

[rateyes]

4. will that affect florida purge?

[Initech]

5. The tea party and their disastrous policies will soon be history.

Yet more good news for us!

[wordpix]

12. just like the temperance movement

Sounded like a good idea to many when it was touted as helping US during WWI (save grain for the troops instead of making it into booze) but later, not so much.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. This is important!

Not sure how many other states had identical ALEC criteria since many used the ALEC framework but hope to hear more on this.

[Dalai_1]

7. Thank you for posting this! K&R n/t

[nxylas]

8. ZOMG the libruls have taken over

Supreme Court justices are considering decisions on their legal merits instead of basing them on how much they help the Republican Party. Why do they hate the Constitution?

[99th_Monkey]

9. K & R ... and Woot to boot!!!! nt

[Historic NY]

10. Boy Janice will never get over those slaps to her face....

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. Governor Brewer isnt celebrating this as another great victory?

was looking forward to the fireworks display and parade.

[ProSense]

22. .

[oldhippydude]

11. thanks for the info..... missed this one entirely

ahem i repeat.....DOJ--->ALEC--->RICO... conspiracy to deny voting rights

[SunSeeker]

13. K&R

[WCGreen]

14. Wow...

that's pretty good news coming from that bench....

[arely staircase]

15. K&R nt

[felix_numinous]

16. ...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

18. Aww poor Jan Brewer.

Not only is she ugly she's a loser as well.

[ChazInAz]

19. A pig just flew past my window.

Is it possible that those arrogant conservatives on the Court are getting worried? Have they heard the sound of approaching hooves?

[HooptieWagon]

20. Wow, the conservative majority SCOTUS

is really slapping around the teabagger majority GOP lately.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Righteous!

[Jim Lane]

23. The PR Watch headline is misleading. The Court did not "reject" the law.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the law and told Arizona to stop enforcing it. Arizona asked the Supreme Court to stay that ruling so that it could continue to enforce the law pending further Supreme Court action. The Court declined to enter the stay. Arizona still has the right to ask the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit.

It's a reasonable speculation that the Court will decline to hear Arizona's appeal on the underlying decision. (The Court hears only a small fraction of the appeals that disgruntled litigants would like to bring to it.) Even a decision like that, however, won't constitute rejecting the law. It's well established that the Court's decision not to hear an appeal from a Circuit Court decision does NOT have the same precedential effect as a Court decision affirming the earlier decision would have. Federal courts outside the Ninth Circuit would remain free to disagree with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning.

[honeylady]

24. Anyone know what the breakdown is?

Who was the swing vote? It certainly wasn't Thomas, Scalia or Alito.