Federal Judge Refuses to Block Citizenship Checks in Three States

A federal  judge on Wednesday refused to grant a preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of voting rights groups and the U.S. Justice Department against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in litigation over voter-citizenship checks.

At issue was a requirement in Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia that individuals registering to vote must provide proof of citizenship. The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and the Obama Justice Department had sued Brian Newby, the U.S. elections official who changed the proof-of-citizenship requirements on the federal registration form at the request of the three states.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's ruling allows Kansas, Alabama and Georgia to demand that their residents submit proof of citizenship before signing up to vote even if they’re using the federal government’s registration forms.

The voting rights groups and the Obama administration had tried to halt the practice, arguing that federal law doesn’t require an extensive citizenship check when people register to vote, and saying the three states were imposing an extra burden on voters.

read more:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/07/01/federal-judge-refuses-to-bl...

Views: 763

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well we not have the federal government

The idea that any judge or our President and the DOJ would make the case that proof of Citizenship is a BURDEN on voters is outrageous and in my opininon prima facia evidence of conspiracy to commit voter fraud... and in turn Election Fraud.

Col Nelson

Please slow down and re-read the article.  In particular the third paragraph; "U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's ruling allows Kansas, Alabama and Georgia to demand that their residents submit proof of citizenship before signing up to vote even if they’re using the federal government’s registration forms". 

The point being that the federal gov't has no say in the matter.

Exactly... the State's need to stand resolute in their right to regulate elections.  The Federal Judge should have dismissed this case without a hearing based on standing, and merit... then sanctioned the DOJ attorney's for bringing the case into his court... wasting his and the people's time with what should have been a frivolous case... the door is now open for appeal or to bring this type of case in another court.

AHP1081, I'd say Col. Nelson is still on track, provided he meant that the idea of any judge declaring identification to be an undue burden on the voter, is outrageous. IMO

Michael J, Thompson

Thank you for your Response.

My replies to Col Nelson were simply to inform him that he misunderstood the Judges Orders. I based my replies on what the Col wrote. Your post provides another avenue which may or may not be an issue. I am not qualified to speculate on either. I can only reply on what my interpretations of the comments were, not what may have been suggested between the lines. But, as I stated, the original post DID NOT Rule against the three States and that was all I wished to relay.  

have a good day  

AHP... exactly, that is what I meant... the Judge should have never heard this case, declared the DOJ's case frivolous and dismissed it for lack of standing and merit... sanctioned the DOJ attorney's and closed the door on any further attempts to bring such cases in his District and others...

Hey... I didn't say the Judge was wrong... I said, that ANY JUDGE, or DOJ and President... who suggests that proving citizenship is a burden on voters should be removed... they need to be impeached for their actions.  This particular judge should have dismissed this case as frivolous on its merits... never giving it a hearing.

I believe that any Judge who believes such a case... needed judicial review should be removed... This case had NO MERIT to be heard. It should have been summarily dismissed, giving it a hearing suggests that it has merit to be heard... and opens the door for appeal.  Of course, the State's have the right to insist on voters producing evidence of their citizenship, and other eligibility requirements to vote (residence, age, etc.)  Allowing a challenge, in Court, to those State's rights, should have resulted in sanctions for the attorney's in the DOJ... for bringing a frivolous case before this judge.

We permit to many frivolous arguments in our courts... it's time for Judges to summarily dismiss them as baseless and... often, insidious acts whose underpinnings are rooted in subverting our electoral system or other laws.

I understand that the State may not remove a Federal Judge and that this judge ruled in favor of the State... However, my outrage is over the case getting a hearing. The fact that the DOJ and this President brought the case. Next, these miscreants will be shopping for a JUDGE, or appealing to in hope's of getting a ruling in their favor... bringing this case in other Districts or on appeal.  That is why we must insist such cases be summarily dismissed for lack of merit, and that they result in sanctions against those bringing the case... and Judges who permit such cases to be heard as if they had merit.

I simply become very upset over the DOJ and this President's attempts to undermine our electoral system ... there are already sufficient problems with registration and election fraud in the system.  This Judge should have dismissed it as frivolous and sanctioned the DOJ attorney's brining the case.

Of course, this is only my opinion and I am very conservative and traditional when it comes to defending our electoral system.

Col Nelson

I'M BACK!   I understand your position.  However (you knew there was going to be a however didn't you?), I prefer a court ruling which specifies the violations, rather than one which indicates his refusal to adjudicate because of his pre-trial determinations.  With an actual ruling based on the evidence presented, the case can be cited in future cases concerning the topic at issue.  To simply state that he refused to hear the case because of this, this and this does not hold the validity of actually hearing the case and then ruling on the merits of the evidence presented. 

It is common for opposing parties to cite cases which benefit their case.  In the future  other States can cite Judge Leon actual ruling in support of there defense of ID requirements.  It is extremely important that the issues did receive a fair trial, not just an opinion of the judge.   

Just think if a judge said." I ruled on the case without a trial because I felt a trial would be waste of time" .  It's like; "bring that guilty SOB in here and we will give him a fair trial and hang him"!  

I'll get off my soap box now

I also understand your arguments.. but history has demonstrated that once the camel has his nose under the tent... he is soon in the tent.  In other words due as Obama's defense has done in his many Birther Cases... keep the case from even making it to discovery... let alone trial.  That kills any appeal or possibility to parse words and find some crack in the Judges dicta which permits the case to be made that proof of citizenship should not be required and that it is up to the State to prove a voter is not eligible to vote or is not a citizen.( a burden the State may find impossible, given the many avenues to obtain citizenship)

I recall a California case where Citizenship challenges were judged to be the States burden... the State has to prove the voter is not a citizen. The voters affidavit attesting to their citizenship is all the proof now required to vote in California. That is why I believe that the proper defense is to reject any Federal case that challenges State election law, based on lack of merit or standing. Don't give such cases a chance to surface there ugly head in Fed. Court.

Col Nelson

Please slow down and re-read the article.  In particular the third paragraph; "U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's ruling allows Kansas, Alabama and Georgia to demand that their residents submit proof of citizenship before signing up to vote even if they’re using the federal government’s registration forms". 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

Image result for puke happy faceWatch: Hillary Clinton Says She’s ‘Deluged’ With Requests To Run Again

Hillary Clinton says she is “deluged” with requests to try another run for president and has still not completely ruled out joining the crowded field of 2020 Democrat candidates.

The former U.S. Secretary of State has repeatedly avoided categorically stepping out of the race for the White House – or directly into it, for that matter.

During media appearances in the UK last month, Clinton twice hinted she may make a belated push on the basis she claims so many people want to see her on the national stage once more.

Speaking on the BBC’s Graham Norton Show in London last Friday, Clinton confirmed she would “have to make up my mind really quickly” if she was going to join the race.

When pushed to respond if she would make a run for the White House for a third time, she prevaricated and avoided a direct reply, instead responding with: “As I say, never, never, never say never.”

She did concede she would need to make up her mind “really quickly” about whether or not to jump into the presidential race.

Clinton has already missed the filing deadline for the first primary in New Hampshire but there is no deadline for the next caucuses in Iowa in early February.

Responding to Norton, Clinton said she had been “deluged” over the last few weeks thinking about running again, but added that, “right now, I’m not, at all, planning that.”

Norton asked: “The rumour mill is flying that you could step back into the ring.”

Clinton replied: “I hear that. I have been deluged the last few weeks with thinking about doing that, but right now I’m not at all planning that.”

Last month Clinton told BBC Radio 5 Live she was under “enormous pressure” to consider a 2020 White House run.

When asked about her future in politics, Clinton said, “I feel a sense of responsibility partly because you know my name was on the ballot, I got more votes, but ended up losing to the current incumbent in the White House who I think is really undermining our democracy in very fundamental ways. And I want to retire him.”

When asked if she is absolutely ruling it out, Clinton said, “ I will certainly tell you. I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it. But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.”

Clinton and her daughter Chelsea, are currently in London promoting their new co-authored book – The Book Of Gutsy Women: Favourite Stories Of Courage And Resilience.

d e g e n e r a c y

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service