9th District court does it again!

[azroaddust]

How can this even be justified? (No proof of citizenship to register to vote)! I know at least ONE political party that realizes this is absolutely absurd! Whatch think? :

Arizona to appeal voter ID case to U.S. Supreme Court
Associated Press
Oct. 10, 2006 01:01 PM



Arizona's Attorney General said Tuesday he will file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to reinstate a requirement that voters show identification at the polls.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction last week barring the state from enforcing the state's voter-approved identification requirements during the Nov. 7 general election.

Attorney General Terry Goddard asked the court to reconsider its injunction, but said the court rejected his request Monday. advertisementhttp://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gifOAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')http://q.azcentral.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1010AZ-voterid-ON.html/1334452973/ArticleFlex_1/OasDefault/qwest_smbiz_news_biz_target_q4/qwest_smbiz_q4_300.txt/38323064393934643435326334336530?_RM_EMPTY_http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif

The injunction also prevented state registrars from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The deadline to register for the general election was midnight Monday.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, voters will not have to show identification to cast ballots, Goddard said in a statement.

The state law was approved by voters in 2004. Called Proposition 200, it requires voters to produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification specified by the law before they are allowed to cast ballots, and to prove they are citizens when registering.

[redherring]

They historically have the highest reversal rate among the rest of the circuit courts.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem showing I.D. in order to vote.


http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/supreme_court_wary_of_9th/decisions_by_court_preview.jpg
http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/images/%2Bbutton.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:openlink('supreme_court_wary_of_9th/chart_1.html','640','520','0','No');)http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/images/enlarge.gif

[Olds]

Unbelieveable. What is with these fools???????

[Bill]

I'm appalled that it's not a FEDERAL requirement that states require proof of citizenship to vote.

I'm all for states rights, and a smaller federal government, but federal laws are enacted by congress, and we have to set federal standards on how those congressmen are counted.

In addition, states should be able to "raise the bar" over the feds, as long as they aren't making it impossible for true citizens to vote. Voting is a right, but in my opinion you have the RESPONSIBILITY to maintain your personal documents to prove you are a citizen. It's not the government's job.

[cowboy117]

You have to show ID to check out a library book but not to vote on issues that impact millions of people!Great idea!:rolleyes:

[freesw]

I can't believe this even got to the 9th circuit court to begin with.

What are some people thinking?

On the other hand, it's as good a time as any to get this issue settled.

[Bill]

The democrats will be hurt more by this, as they are stacking the polling stations with illegals.

Activist groups (ACLU, others) don't want to lose the votes, even if they aren't legal. So their lawyers (not sure which in this case) will file the necessary petition/appeal paperwork claiming that it's unconstitutional. THAT is how it gets to the 9th circuit.

There is a legitimate concern by the liberals. Having requirements like a drivers license or passport (neither of which are required by law) might prevent some legitimate citizens from voting. Since these people are mostly poor and sometimes disabled, having stricter requirements could be seen as a form of discrimination. Think about blacks in the south in the '50's, and you see where the legal standing is for this type of appeal.

Again, I am all for states rights, but having a single ID across the nation is making more and more sense to me. Illegals will still falsify documentation, but at least there will be a SINGLE set of standards for getting ID, and it will help employers by making sure that there is a single point of contact for verifying identification.

Heck, give me one drivers license and one test and one set of vehicle laws (for driving) nationwide. Let the states and counties and local communities continue to set speed limits and control their infrastructure, but it makes NO sense to me that one state can allow right-turn-on-red and another cannot. When I travel for business, I don't know if I can turn, or if I shouldn't answer my cell phone, etc.

But I digress. There are certain things that need to be the same nation-wide, and voting rights laws (and voting REQUIREMENTS) should be one of them.

[TDSP]

Again, I am all for states rights, but having a single ID across the nation is making more and more sense to me. Illegals will still falsify documentation, but at least there will be a SINGLE set of standards for getting ID, and it will help employers by making sure that there is a single point of contact for verifying identification.

While it makes sense, I see great potential for abuse. Identity thefts, misuse by companies that have access, data mining by our government, bypassing of our laws and rights to catch criminals, etc. That's the very reason that a lot of organizations (especially educational, etc) are no longer allowed to use a SSN as an ID number. They already can track your actions and movements to a level that I'm uncomfortable with, why make it even easier for them?

[Bill]

While it makes sense, I see great potential for abuse. Identity thefts, misuse by companies that have access, data mining by our government, bypassing of our laws and rights to catch criminals, etc. That's the very reason that a lot of organizations (especially educational, etc) are no longer allowed to use a SSN as an ID number. They already can track your actions and movements to a level that I'm uncomfortable with, why make it even easier for them?

I'm not quite sure I understand. I'm not arguing, I'm asking for clarification or education.


Identity Theft: We already have that problem with current driver's licenses. How is it made worse?
Misuse by companies that have access: How do companies have access? Employers already have your SSN and one (or more) other forms of ID, and this ID wouldn't be used for any other transactions. I don't get this one.
Data mining by the government. How so? What data are they going to mine other than your name and address and age? They already have your name and address from your tax returns. Again, I don't get it.
Bypassing of our laws and rights to catch criminals: Again, I don't understand what you mean.

[TDSP]

I'm not quite sure I understand. I'm not arguing, I'm asking for clarification or education.


Identity Theft: We already have that problem with current driver's licenses. How is it made worse?
Misuse by companies that have access: How do companies have access? Employers already have your SSN and one (or more) other forms of ID, and this ID wouldn't be used for any other transactions. I don't get this one.
Data mining by the government. How so? What data are they going to mine other than your name and address and age? They already have your name and address from your tax returns. Again, I don't get it.
Bypassing of our laws and rights to catch criminals: Again, I don't understand what you mean.

This is all IMHO, but:


Identity Theft: If there's one national ID standard, the paper trail from establishing and using that standard will all be kept in a central place. In the event of a release of data, internal fraud, or other breach, that entire trail will become evident. Our current "disorganized" system actually acts in a failsafe in the manner that only you are likely to know certain details that can be invaluable in re-asseting your identity with a credit union, etc after an identity theft. For example, an identity thief isn't going to know details about previous addresses that aren't kept in the big corporate info services but are important to Transperian, etc. The best way to really fight ID theft is to keep vigilant through education and to assist those who have had it occur in setting it straight. I don't see an underfunded, inefficent federal agency doing both of those things effectively when it's main goal is keeping a national ID system going.

Misuse by companies that have access: That was a goof on my part. I should have said: Misuse by employees at companies that have access to your information. Most frauds and identity thefts are inside jobs. If an employee has access to the system, they have access to your information. As I was saying, a lot of companies and organizations no longer are allowed to use your SSN for internal purposes. They are forced to have their own internal tracking number so theoretically segregation of duties will keep your complete set of personal information out of the hands of people who could effectively use that information for fraud/ID theft. Only the people checking your credit have access to the SSN and they can only use it to check your credit and return an answer to those who have other vital details. Again, introduce a new identity number that's universal and we'd create a new loophole we'd have to close, and I don't trust that those who create a national ID would be willing/able to do that right off the bat.

Data mining by the government: The government has your information, but it's segregated within agencies as it stands now. For example, the IRS has your SSN, address, financial info, etc. That does not mean other branches of the government have that information. The Social Security Administration Agency has a set of vital information that the other agencies do not have, they use it exclusively for internal purposes to administer benefits/medicare/medicaid. The NCIS has your criminal record. The USPS, who just happens to run one of the largest data mining operations in the entire world for it's direct delivery advertising and other services. The USPS doesn't have your SSN, financial info, Criminal record, etc, just a DOB and your address. If we had a national ID agency, all of those agencies could easily abuse their power and be able to keep a central repository with the ID agency. Not that dangerous, but I'd prefer not to be singled out in my mailbox for any services that the USPS is advertising for regarding things like my criminal record and my age. To boot, Homeland security could use it to "track terrorists" and effectively bypass some elements of search and seizure by simply "following the patern". Basically with this one, I'm arguing that a disorganized government is better for our freedom. More information for them means more power, more power for them means less for us.

Bypassing of our laws and rights to catch criminals: Answered in Datamining.

I'm not trying to be tinfoil hat here, just realistic. I would rather see our government small, efficent and blind to all activities we carry out that don't involve hurting another person or hurting the collective. Giving our government a national ID law would just create another bloated, overpriced, agency that could be abused for the benefit of the government.

[Hoodoo]

These are just a bunch of ultra Liberal anti American whack jobs. The SS will overturn this idiocy. Since only Citizens have the right to vote of courseit's OK and should be mandatory that positive proof of Citizenship be provided. The cokmplaints we hear that the "POOR" can't afford picture ID is pure BS.