On June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 12-71. The most important consequence of this decision is that the Elections Clause in Article One of the U.S. Constitution has been strengthened. The “Elections Clause” only relates to Congressional elections. It says, “Section 4. The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
Justice Scalia, writing for the 7-2 majority, said that while it is true that in most disputes between federal and state authority, there must be a careful balancing of federal power to allow as much state power as possible, this is not true for the Elections Clause. Page eleven of his decision says, “There is good reason for treating Election Clause legislation differently. The assumption that Congress is reluctant to pre-empt does not hold when Congress acts under that constitutional provision, which empowers Congress to ‘make or alter’ state election regulations…the federalism concerns underlying the presumption in the Supremacy Clause context are somewhat weaker here. Unlike the States’ ‘historic police powers’, the States’ role in regulating congressional elections – while weighty and worthy of respect – has always existed subject to the express qualification that it ‘terminates according to federal law.'”
This finding will be useful in any current and future lawsuits over discriminatory ballot access laws involving congressional elections. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001), that the Elections Clause was intended by the founding fathers to prevent the states from “favoring or disfavoring a class of candidates.” Cook v Gralike struck down Missouri election laws that required printing disparaging ballot labels on the ballot for candidates who did not favor a U.S. Constitutional amendment for term limits. The Arizona decision will help to win the current California lawsuit, Chamness v Bowen, challenging unequal ballot access labels for candidates for Congress. The Arizona decision helps because it gives new force and precedential power to Cook v Gralike, a decision that has often been overlooked even though it was unanimous.
Six justices agreed with Scalia that the Elections Clause has extra power, relative to most federal laws that seem to deprive states of some power relative to the federal government. Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed with that point, yet he still voted for the outcome.
As to the actual dispute itself in the Arizona case, the issue was whether Arizona can require additional information from voters who use the federal voter registration postcard form, concerning proof of citizenship. The congressional law on voter registration, which created a federal voter registration form, does not ask for proof of citizenship other than a signature over penalty of perjury. Arizona wanted to reject the federal forms if the registrant did not answer extra questions and provide proof of citizenship. Ostensibly, Arizona lost the June 17 opinion; the decision says the state must accept the federal forms as they are. But the decision also says that Arizona has a legal right to request the federal government to give it permission to add extra questions. The decision implies that if Arizona asks the federal government to add the extra questions, the federal government must give it that permission, so if Arizona is stubborn about this issue, the state may win the relief it sought eventually anyway. This outcome is possible because the federal 1993 voter registration law itself gives states permission to ask the federal government to alter the form.
The reason that Arizona has a strong likelihood of forcing the federal government to allow it to add the extra questions, if it requests that, is a separate section of the U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Two, says state control voter qualifications for their own state legislatures and those voter qualifications for Congress must match the qualifications for state legislative elections. If Arizona pursues this, it would have to persuade the federal Election Administration Commission that it needs the extra questions to enforce its right to prevent non-citizens from voting.
There is interesting commentary on this one at SCOTUSblog.
One more PERVERSION SCOTUS *opinion* attacking the 50 States.
The STATES define who are the Electors for voting for the gerrymander Congress and the Prez/VP.
———
1-2-1 The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
17 Amdt, para. 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Gee – what LEGAL EVIDENCE is required about such *qualifications* in each allegedly sovereign State ???
i.e. the legal PROOF of being a *natural born* citizen or a *naturalized* citizen — i.e. some LEGAL paperwork
— NOT some pre-school YES or NO on a moronic Federal form.
What’s next ??? Do you think Obama is God on Earth ??? YES or NO — be careful how you answer the question ??? !!!
Underlying ROT – communist Donkeys want more ILLEGAL INVADERS voting for communist Donkeys in the various minority rule gerrymander regimes — Fed, State, Local.
You’re misinterpreting Cook v Gralike. That decision said that the Missouri law was not a manner regulation under the Elections Clause, but rather a Qualification. It would be equally applicable if Congress were to attempt impose statutory term limits by the method used by Missouri, or the method used by Arkansas in US Term Limits.
What the Arizona decision relied on was the authority of Congress to override manner regulation. The SCOTUS of course trampled on the authority of the States to set the qualification of electors for their legislature, as it has in Oregon v Mitchell and Tashjian.
None of this is applicable to Chamness v Bowen. The misinterpretation of SB 6 by the Secretary of State exceeded her authority under the Elections Clause.
I quoted from Cook v Gralike, and your e-mail above doesn’t. Why don’t you quote from the part of Justice Stevens’ opinion that you feel says what you said?
Justice Stevens was quoting from his opinion in US Term Limits
“As Hamilton’s statement suggests, the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”
Arkansas was attempting to evade the Qualifications clause.
Arizona was not attempting to evade the Qualifications clause, and there was not an issue whether or not it was a valid manner regulation. The SCOTUS was simply interpreting but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations
Calfornia’s Secretary of State interpretation of SB 6 is contrary to its plain language that says the preference that a candidate disclosed on their affidavit of voter registration is their party preference as a candidate.
Did Michael Chamness disclose that his party preference was the Coffee Party on his most recent affidavit of voter registration? Did he sign the affidavit so as to certify that it was truthful and correct?
Did the Secretary of State exceed her authority under the Elections Clause? We are not talking about the Secretary of State closing their office at 5 pm, just as they did on almost every other day. We are talking about making up words that are not present.
Art. I, Sec. 4 stuff is due to the failure of the various State regimes to have delegates sent to the Congress in 1775-1787 (many meeting days with NO quorems in the Congress)
— i.e. the very near collapse of the USA regime while fighting the Brit tyrant regime in 1775-1783 and the de facto collapse of the USA regime in 1783-1787 (due to the States attacking each other via tax laws, not paying taxes to the USA regime, paper money rot, etc.)
Does the Elections Clause empower the states to monopolize the production of ballots and also compel voters to use the state ballot or have their right to vote denied?
Can the Congress by making or altering states’ ballot monopolies establish a national ballot monopoly form which all states would have to use and compel all voters to use or have their right to vote denied?
Is voting a regulated privilege which Congress can abridge or deny if any regulation it may legislate is violated?