2013 Supreme Court decision a blow to voter integrity

 Epoch Times:

Arizona lost one of its key protections on voter integrity after the Supreme Court in 2013 overturned legislation requiring a proof of citizenship for people who register to vote. This erodes voter integrity, Dan Farley, Tea Party Phoenix Metro President told The Epoch Times.

Although the state website says that persons “must be a U.S. citizen in order to register and vote,” it also says that proof of citizenship is not required when voting in federal elections. Voters are instead only required to prove they are an Arizona resident and U.S. citizen for state and local elections, Farley said in a recent interview on The Epoch Times’ Crossroads program.

“We might be able to protect our state currently but we are unable to protect our electoral votes and the leadership of our nation,” Farley said.

In 2002, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission introduced a national mail voter registration form through which people could register to vote.

People who use this federal form to register only need to check off on the form that they are American citizens “with no proof required,” Farley said.

Therefore, Arizonians tried to pass legislation that introduced a requirement to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and identification when casting a ballot.

The law, known as Proposition 200, was designed to strengthen voter integrity, Farley said. But the requirement to present a proof of citizenship was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Election integrity is especially critical if one candidate is leading by a narrow margin as in this year’s presidential race where President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are “only about 12 000 votes apart,” Farley said.

If people who are not U.S. citizens registered to vote in Arizona using the national voter registration form, then votes of legitimate U.S. citizens and Arizona’s electoral votes will be stolen, Farley said. This can “occur in every state across the nation because this is the gray area,” he added.

... 

The issue should be raised at the court again since it clearly had a negative impact on the integrity of the vote.  There is likely a chance that the current court will reverse the prior opinion.