• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Supreme Court rules Arizona cannot require citizenship proof to vote.


Son of Liberty
So I can't get on here from my computer anymore and I don't know why so I can't post a link. But the Supreme Court just sided with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 that required proof of citizenship.

In dissent Justice Thomas stated " the Constitution authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine those qualifications are satisfied."

I agree with the dissent for two reasons. 1) Thomas is correct in what the Constitution proscribes as it relates to states requirements to vote. 2) as someone who lives on the border you would be surprised at the number of people who vote who are not citizens. This is something that really needs to be stopped as voting is one of our most fundamental rights.



Free Spirit
Staff member
If a state and its people want I think they should be able to require citizenship proof to vote. Which most documents can be forged but it will stop a lot of the non citizens from voting.


Well-Known Member
I don't see why proof of citizenship shouldn't be required in order to be allowed to vote.

Can I assume the age limit doesn't apply either? If proof of citizenship isn't required then wouldn't it make it easy to vote underage and possibly even double vote?

I've always thought that this was a ridiculous notion that people shouldn't have to have proof of citizenship to vote. What it's doing is putting the power in the hands of people that aren't even supposed to be here in the first place.

Forgive this politically polarized statement, but I think it's what Democrats want because it seems that they would receive the vast majority of the illegal vote.

Sort of reminds me of the time that Arizona got into trouble for passing a bill that made it illegal to be in the state illegally.


Problematic Shitlord
I've always felt that stories like this are meant to distract us from real voting problems such as the shitty machinery they use to tally the votes. Several times now in the past several elections, people have spoken out saying the machines are easily hacked and not very reliable, yet it is never a big news story. Why?