Did the Supreme Court get it wrong..?
Today the U.S. Supreme Court released some more of its rulings. This week it just happened to be Arizona – and the state’s immigration law that states everyone who wants to vote must have some proof of his or her U.S. citizenship before electing to do so.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states could not, on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
Fundamentally with all research still being sourced – we have a rather unique problem with this type ruling. First notice that it was a “voter-approved requirement” which still leaves the IX Amendment something that consequently is basically unknown to most Americans. The Ninth Amendment is referred to as a construction amendment. Basically meaning that Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.
Therefore, without further adieu here is what the 9th (Ninth) Amendment is saying:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
This is a clear and unobstructed view of how special interests groups collude with the federal government in matters of their wanting. Notice that it states Nina Perales, “…Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
We are sure that she is referring to the other forms of identification warranted by the before mentioned “Motor Voter” voter registration law. Therefore, for those interested we now move to the X (Tenth) Amendment which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.
The past decade or so has seen a widespread increase in legislation addressing voting procedures, often taking the form of laws imposing voter identification requirements. Although many states now have their own laws addressing voting procedures and ID requirements, at the federal level the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, was passed in 2002 in response to some of the controversial issues that arose during the 2000 presidential elections.
Under HAVA, individuals who are registering to vote must provide their current valid driver’s license number, if they have one. If they do not have one, then they must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number (SSN). If they do not have either of these forms of identification, then they will have to provide proof of identity at the polling booth when they go to vote.
Last, but not least, voters should be aware that even if they fail to provide proof of identity at the polling booth, they must still be allowed to vote under HAVA. However, their votes will be considered provisional, and will not be counted in the results unless the voter’s identity is confirmed in a timely manner. Additionally, every voter is entitled to know if his or her vote was counted or not. The law facilitates this by requiring each state to develop a system whereby provisional voters may access, for free, information as to the status of their provisional vote.