The law is about registering to vote not prove you are a citizen on voting day. Registration is usually at least a month before in most communities.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Leland Jackson" <[email protected]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Court overturns AZ proof of citizenship requirement > Anyone that is not a citizen of the US would be taking a big chance in > going to the polls to vote. They would have to be out of their minds to > do so, as the risk would far outweigh possible gains. > > Many voters that are qualified US citizens might have trouble proving so > on the spot election day, and could be wrongfully denied their right to > vote, or minority citizen could be run off. The intimidation factor > would put off many legal voters who might elect to not even bother with > trying to vote. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > On 10/27/2010 02:50 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: >> 1. Do you know the difference between hear and here? >> >> 2. To vote in an election you must be a citizen and you must not be a >> felon. So how can you not require proof of citizenship? >> >> --- On Wed, 10/27/10, Leland Jackson<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Leland Jackson<[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [OT] Court overturns AZ proof of citizenship requirement >>> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> >>> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 3:40 PM >>> As Judge Judy says: They >>> don't keep me hear because I'm gorgeous; >>> they keep me hear because I'm smart. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/27/2010 12:32 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: >>>> Why have borders? Why have visas? Why have >>> passports? And why are liberal female >>> judges always so goddam ugly? >>>> --- On Wed, 10/27/10, Nicholas Geti<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> From: Nicholas Geti<[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: [OT] Court overturns AZ proof of >>> citizenship requirement >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 11:30 AM >>>>> What is our National Government >>>>> coming to that it passes a law (National Voter >>> Registration >>>>> Act) preventing state governments from asking >>> proof of >>>>> citizenship before registering to vote in local >>> elections? >>>>> The D's wanted to get as many illegals as they >>> could to >>>>> register. Congress claimed this law can open >>> registration to >>>>> fraud but said there are a lot of safeguards. Why >>> did >>>>> Congress even get involved with this kind of law. >>> Let the >>>>> states decide citizenship. This is typical of >>> Congress >>>>> thinking. Pass a regulation then include dozens or >>> hundreds >>>>> of pages of exceptions and caveats. It never works >>> because >>>>> someone always come up with another way to get >>> around it. >>>>> Court Overturns AZ's Proof of Citizenship >>> Requirement to >>>>> Register to Vote >>>>> >>>>> http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_3bbf4f4e-e12c-11df-b57f-001cc4c002e0.html >>>>> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned >>> Arizona's >>>>> requirement that people show proof of citizenship >>> to >>>>> register to vote. The split decision by a >>> three-judge panel >>>>> determined that the requirement to show proof of >>> citizenship >>>>> - passed by voters in 2004 - is not consistent >>> with the >>>>> National Voter Registration Act. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >>>>> multipart/alternative >>>>> text/plain (text body -- kept) [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/65e0a7e106664f3b9890832d38cc8...@dual ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
