[EL] will today's decision revive the EAC?

[Marty Lederman]

Agreed -- the test won't be "anything AZ wants."  The most obvious question
left open (deliberately) is what the showing has to be.  I wrote this:
Notably, the Court does not resolve what sort of showing Arizona would have
to make to demonstrate that the "mere oath" does not "suffice," other than
to say that Arizona must be able to obtain "the information necessary to
enforce its voter qualifications."

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>wrote:

> It seems to me Arizona couldn't win a court case to force the EAC staff
> let Arizona amend the federal form that is used inside Arizona, without
> proving to the court that there is a real, genuine need for the Arizona
> questions.
>
> If Arizona can do anything it wants, it could theoretically require voters
> using the federal form to attach a certified copy of a birth certificate or
> a certificate of naturalization.  Even Arizona doesn't seem to want that
> much documentation.  If Arizona could do anything it wants, it might say it
> is worried that under-age individuals are registering to vote, and
> therefore it needs to see every applicant's birth certificate.  If it
> doesn't want ex-felons to register, theoretically it could even demand that
> the applicant produce a report from law enforcement agencies testifying
> that the applicant has no record of a felony conviction.  There surely are
> limits.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Mon, 6/17/13, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] will today's decisoin revive the EAC?
> To: "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Cc: richardwinger at yahoo.com, law-election at uci.edu
> Date: Monday, June 17, 2013, 2:45 PM
>
> "the court will simply order EAC employees to accommodate Arizona on the
> federal form'
>
> or, as the footnote suggests, if the court can't mandamus the EAC
> employees, it might simply declare that Arizona can deny registration
> absent further proof of citizenship, Federal Form notwithstanding.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu>
> > wrote:
>
>  I don't see that Richard.  That would just delay things in the Arizona
> case.  Now Arizona can go to court and demand that the EAC act.  When it
> can't because of the lack of a quorum to act, the court will simply order
> EAC employees to accommodate Arizona on the federal form.
>
> More broadly, the Republicans I've spoken who oppose the EAC see it as a
> failed agency that does the bidding of Democrats.  So why revive it for a
> single case?
>
>
>
> On 6/17/13 2:37 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
>
>   Maybe Republicans in Congress will now want to see the EAC in
> operation?  I would expect at least Arizona's Republican members of
> Congress would favor that.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu>http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@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/cac4277a/attachment.html>