Who Or, What Are They Advocating For?
Voting-Rights Advocates Get Win at Supreme Court
From the article:
Monday’s big election law news came from the Supreme Court’s penultimate decision of the term upholding Arizona’s congressional districts.
But before handing down its last three decisions, the court made voting-rights advocates happy by deciding not to review a different election case.
“Arizona citizens can continue to participate in voter registration drives without worrying about not having proof of citizenship documents,” Shirley Sandelands, of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, said in a statement Monday
So, it’s late and I’m trying to make sense of this. Basically by not doing something, the Supreme Court is doing something. That’s the BIG win.
What it boils down to is this…If you want to vote in Arizona you can bypass having citizenship papers by filing with the federal form. Effectively opening the door for illegals to vote.
Here it is…
By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona and Kansas in November 2014, saying the EAC did not have to modify its form to meet state laws. Under the federal form, would-be voters need only swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.
And who is on board with NOT needing citizenship papers to qualify to vote. The League of Women Voter’s for one. Also the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).
The claim is…that needing an I.D. to vote would stop/prevent the poor from voting. Or, elderly Americans. I would bet most people’s grandparent’s have all the papers to prove they are citizens.
Amazingly, the poor seem to have no problem signing up for food stamps, and medicaid? And Obama phones, though the program was not really initiated by Obama.
Apparently the League of Women Voter’s along with the ACLU imply that you can’t think past your nose. And all those poor, poor, and elderly people. Aw…
“If” the ACLU and the League of Women Voter’s really wanted to help the cause of the poor and elderly they should help them get their paper’s together. It would be a one time deal.
Do I think a person should be required to use I.D. to vote….absolutely. To not require it…is ludicrous.
But….you know, of course…there is no agenda.
And those who bragged about voting more than once in past elections… Just a figment of your imagination.
What is that old saying…Do you believe me, or your lying eyes. I guess it should be changed to Do you believe me, or your common sense?