The most talked about decision by the Supreme Court today is likely to be the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Here's what the case was about as summarized by scotusblog.com:
"As part of an effort to increase voter registration and turnout, in 1993 Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act. The Act requires states to “accept and use” a specific federal form for voter registration; that form asks, among other things, whether the would-be voter is a citizen of the United States and over the age of eighteen. In 2004, Arizona voters approved a law that requires election officials in that state to refuse to register any would-be voter who cannot prove that he is in fact a citizen. Arizona residents, along with voting and civil rights groups, challenged the state law, arguing that it could not stand because it conflicted with, and was trumped by, the NVRA. The challengers won in the lower court, and the Supreme Court granted review last fall to consider not only whether the state law can survive, but also whether the lower court used the right test in making its decision"
The court struck down the Arizona law in a 7-2 with Justice Scalia’s opinion being joined in full support by the Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Kennedy joined the opinion except one small part.
At first glance seems like a huge win for Congress. A closer reading, however, suggests that the ruling massively restricts Congress' power. In the second half of the opinion, the decision gives states very wide authority to define who gets to vote, in both state and federal elections. What this effectively means is that the while Congress how federal elections are run procedurally, this decision suggests that Constitution grants the power of who gets to vote to the States and not to Congress. This may in fact curtail the ability of Congress to create a national standard for the right to vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment