Supreme Court Strikes Down Proof of Citizenship Voter Requirements
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed register to vote.
In an opinion written [PDF] by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that the Arizona statute violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, also known as the "Motor Voter Law") of 1993, which created a federal form that individuals can mail in to register to vote in federal elections. No proof of citizenship is required to complete the form, however each applicant must sign that he or she is a citizen of the United States under penalty of perjury. Scalia wrote, "We conclude that the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is 'inconsistent with' the NVRA's mandate that States 'accept and use' the Federal Form." He continued, "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."
Justice Kennedy concurred with six other justices, but submitted his own opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority ruling, arguing that states had the final right to determine voter eligibility, even in federal elections, and can request supplemental information to confirm a person's eligibility respectively.
The ruling calls into question similar laws in four other states - Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee. Although the ruling prohibits requiring proof of citizenship to register for federal elections, the Court determined that a state may still require proof of citizenship for eligibility to vote in state/local elections.
Media Resources: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of AZ Inc. 6/17/2013; USA Today 6/17/2013
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/29/2014 North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Restrictions - The North Dakota Supreme Court yesterday upheld a set of misguided restrictions on medication abortion, allowing what is effectively a ban on early, non-surgical abortions in the state to go into effect immediately.
The decision overturned a lower court order finding the law, known as HB 1297, unconstitutional and permanently blocking its enforcement. . . .