|
| U.S. History students from Austin, Minn. High School visit the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 17, 2013, in anticipation of key decisions being announced. With a week remaining in the current Supreme Court term, several major cases are still outstanding that could have widespread political impact on same-sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- States can't demand proof of citizenship from people registering
to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval
to do so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision complicating
efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in
the country illegally.
The justices' 7-2
ruling closes the door on states independently changing the requirements
for those using the voter-registration form produced under the federal
"motor voter" registration law. They would need permission from a
federally created panel, the Election Assistance Commission, or a
federal court ruling overturning the commission's decision, to make
tougher requirements stick.
Justice Antonin
Scalia, who wrote the court's majority opinion, said federal law
"precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit
information beyond that required by the form itself."
Voting rights advocates welcomed the ruling.
"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. "The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the
right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the
state in which they live."
Under Proposition
200 approved in 2004, Arizona officials required an Arizona driver's
license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other
similar document before the state would approve the federal
registration application. It can no longer do that on its own authority.
Less
than 5 percent of people registering to vote in Arizona use the federal
form, said Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona Secretary of State Ken
Bennett. The rest register through the state, meaning they will
continue to be asked to provide proof of citizenship when signing up to
vote.
But because of the court ruling, people
can merely choose the less onerous federal form, which asks people to
swear if they are citizens or not, but does not demand proof.
Arizona
Attorney General Tom Horne, who argued the case before the Supreme
Court, expects the state will ask the Election Assistance Commission to
approve the citizenship proof on the federal form and to fight any
denial in court - the process laid out in Monday's ruling.
"The
U.S. Supreme Court has given us a clear path to victory for the people
of Arizona, who overwhelmingly approved the state constitutional
amendment that was the subject of the legal challenge,"
Horne said.
"Since the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that this pathway
exists, Arizona should use it.
The sanctity of the ballot box is a
cherished right for all Americans and it must be protected."
Federal officials deadlocked on Arizona's request in 2005, and the state did not appeal.
In other actions Monday, the court:
-Ruled
that agreements between the makers of name-brand and generic drugs to
delay the generics' availability can be illegal and challenged in court.
-Ruled
that prosecutors in some instances may use a suspect's silence at an
early stage of a criminal investigation against him or her, before the
suspect has been arrested or informed of constitutional rights.
-Agreed
to decide in its next term a new dispute involving race; specifically,
whether federal housing law requires proof of intentional
discrimination.
The Arizona case is the first
of two major voting decisions to be made by the court this month.
Justices have yet to say whether a section of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, a law that has helped millions of minorities exercise their right
to vote, especially in areas of the Deep South, was still needed,
despite several justices voicing deep skepticism during arguments in
February.
Arizona has tangled frequently with
the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican
border, health care and more. But the decision on voter registration has
broader implications because other states have similar requirements,
such as Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee, and still others are
contemplating such legislation.
Georgia
Secretary of State Brian Kemp called the decision disappointing but said
he would continue working with state officials to "provide a safe,
secure and legal system for voter registration."
Tom
Caso, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in California and
supporter of the Arizona law, said the decision "opened the door" to
noncitizen voting.
"The court's decision
ignores the clear dictates of the Constitution in favor of bureaucratic
red tape," Caso said. "The notion that the court will not enforce the
Constitution unless you first apply to a commission that cannot act
because it has no members is mind-boggling."
Currently,
the Election Assistance Commission has no active commissioners. The
four commissioners are supposed to be nominated by the president and
confirmed by the Senate. The last two left in 2011, according to the
panel's website.
Kathy McKee, who led the push
to get Proposition 200 on the ballot in Arizona, said the ruling makes
it harder to combat voter fraud, including fraud carried out by people
who don't have permission to be in the country. "To even suggest that
the honor system works, really?" McKee said. "You have to prove who you
are just to use your charge card now."
Justices
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only two dissenters. Alito
said the decision means that Arizona now has two voter registration
systems, and that the success of an applicant could come simply by the
system he or she chooses. "I find it very hard to believe that this is
what Congress had in mind," he said.
Opponents
of Arizona's law saw it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as
minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they've counted more
than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have
registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked by the state law in
the 20 months after it passed. They say about 20 percent of those
thwarted were Latino.
Arizona officials say
they should be able to pass laws to stop noncitizens from getting on
their voting rolls.
The Arizona voting law was part of a package that
also denied some government benefits to people in the country illegally
and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.
Arizona
can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a
state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and challenge any adverse
decision by the government in court. Louisiana's request already has
been granted, Scalia said.
The ruling upholds
one by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the 1993
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona's Proposition
200.
The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
