Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
One other thing, I (admittedly) skimmed through the link you provided for the opinion of the court, and read a little more in depth on the NVRA which the majority based it's decision. From my reading (I'm sure it's biased, somehow), the states are responsible for ensuring a registrant's eligibility to vote. (Sec. 1973gg-3). Specifically it says that they may only ask for the minimum information to determine eligibility and to prevent duplicate voter registration. In a state where IDs are forged on a regular basis so illegal immigrants can get jobs, I can see the state reasonably asking for proof of citizenship as the minimum information to ensure voter eligibility.It's addressed again further into the document, and I didn't see anything that prohibited asking for specific documents. I feel that a little inconvenience is worth maintaining the integrity of the process that elects the officials that choose the political direction of this country and state, and it's people. I feel racist for even thinking this (which frustrates me) but why is this a hispanic issue? Prop 200 didn't ask latino voters to do anything different than caucasian or african american, or any other voters, and yet it seems that the plantiffs, with the exception of five entities, were hispanic in nature. The only hispanic aspect of this issue is the overwhelming amount of people in this country illegally. They don't have a right to vote. Ensuring citizenship of this state's voter's shouldn't be illegal. Plain and simple. Oct 26, 2010
@abimopectore; I don't see how ensuring that registered voters are legal citizens is counter to the US Constitution. It's not discriminatory in any way to ask EVERYONE who is registering to vote to provide a legal document of their legal citizenship status. It's no harder for a formerly Mexican national who has recently become a US citizen to obtain documents demonstrating this than it is for me. It cuts down on voter fraud, plain and simple. If a person has no qualms about entering this country by bypassing all legal avenues, I can't see how they'd have an issue with registering to vote, even if they're liable for perjury. It's not much of a deterrent to someone who's already violated federal laws, is it?
As far as the political climate in Arizona, you must have missed the fact that this law being repealed may have single-handedly let Grijalva keep his seat. As far as I'm concerned he should have been booted the moment he thought it would be appropriate to initiate and support an economic boycott during an already difficult time for the constituents he was supposed to represent. Oct 26, 2010