[EL] Arizona opinion

[Marty Lederman]

Can anyone tell me quickly whether federal law still contains the two
30-day rules upheld in Mitchell (or something like them)?:

requiring a State to allow a new resident to vote for President if she had
moved to the State more than 30 days before the election;
and
requiring a State to permit a *previous* resident to vote for President if
he had moved *from *the state fewer than 30 days before a federal election.

Thanks in advance.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Marty Lederman
<lederman.marty at gmail.com>wrote:

> potentially huge implications for the Elections Clause, since the Court --
> without dissent! -- appears to finally resolve that Congress can't set
> qualifications for voting in federal elections (the issue that split the
> Justices in Oregon v. Mitchell).
>
> Under that ruling, what might be at stake?
>
> For starters, UOCAVA, which requires a state to register for federal
> elections any person who resides outside the United States and (but for
> such residence) would be qualified to vote in that state if it was the last
> place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States.
>
> For another, this is a blow for any future efforts to enact a federal
> statute preempting felon disenfranchisement laws.
>
> What's more, when combined with other "recent" decisions (the Boerne
> line), it would appear to call into question Congress's authority to enact
> three statutes that the Court *upheld* in Oregon v. Mitchell:
>
> i. requiring that 18-year-olds be permitted to vote in federal elections;
> ii.  requiring that a State had to allow a new resident to vote for
> President if she had moved to the State more than 30 days before the
> election;
> and
> iii. requiring that a State had to permit a *previous* resident to vote
> for President if he had moved *from *the state fewer than 30 days before
> a federal election.
>
> (Of course, the Justices relied on an array of rationales in Mitchell; but
> the residency holdings were supported by eight Justices and the 18-year-old
> vote by five -- and the other rationales in support of those holdings would
> not necessarily stick today.)
>
> Moreover, footnote 9 of the Scalia opinion at least leaves *open *the
> question of whether Congress could prohibit Arizona from doing the
> following:  (i) requiring proof of citizenship in order to register; and
> then (ii) providing that "registration" is a qualification for voting.
>
> Federal government might have won the battle, but as for the war . . .
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/arizona-intertribal.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130617/a9370e97/attachment.html>