Yesterday morning El Gringo Viejo had to go out to the corral to let the mares out for a scamper. Just as I swung the gate open to let them into the main pasture, a leather bag came into view. It was bigger than a bullet bag but smaller than a lady's purse. It was probably something benign, but I openned it carefully anyway, noticing quickly that a piece of fine stationery with a black Z on it, covered a ribboned collection of five or six pages of very legal and important looking stuff.
This time the message was about the appeal of the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the service of the central government with reference to an appeal by the State of Arizona, wherein said State prays for relief from the 9th Circuit's decision to set aside Arizona's recently passed legislation concerning its method of qualifying electors and conducting elections within its pertinent territory. The State of Arizona is appealing on two points; one that asserts that the 9th Circuit is ruling against existing precedent established in other Appellate Courts of the central government, as well as the Supreme Court of that same central government. And the second point being that the 9th Circuit specifically overreaches by setting the National Voter Registration Act as applicable to, and superior to, law passed by the State of Arizona, to wit: requiring that potential electors provide proof of eligibility to register to vote.
El Zorro provides the linkage necessary to delve into the nuts and bolts of this important case. The Roman erred by expanding the definition and pathway to citizenship to the point that the status of Citizen ceased to have any status, once it became apparent that anyone could become a citizen and exercise his rights without concern about addressing his responsibilities. So these cases become more interesting, even if tedious to follow. The investment of the time, and the cleaning of reading glasses lenses frequently, in the opinion of El Gringo Viejo, is well worth it. El Zorro is better than a "pretty fair" country lawyer, especially considering that he is self-trained. He is an expert on 2nd amendment law, par excellence, and a worthy commentator on most United States Constitutional issues. He is not the guy at the end of the bar bellowing, "Well, if there ain't no law agin it, there oughta be!" He makes more sense than the $1,000/hour big-city attorneys.
This time the message was about the appeal of the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the service of the central government with reference to an appeal by the State of Arizona, wherein said State prays for relief from the 9th Circuit's decision to set aside Arizona's recently passed legislation concerning its method of qualifying electors and conducting elections within its pertinent territory. The State of Arizona is appealing on two points; one that asserts that the 9th Circuit is ruling against existing precedent established in other Appellate Courts of the central government, as well as the Supreme Court of that same central government. And the second point being that the 9th Circuit specifically overreaches by setting the National Voter Registration Act as applicable to, and superior to, law passed by the State of Arizona, to wit: requiring that potential electors provide proof of eligibility to register to vote.
El Zorro provides the linkage necessary to delve into the nuts and bolts of this important case. The Roman erred by expanding the definition and pathway to citizenship to the point that the status of Citizen ceased to have any status, once it became apparent that anyone could become a citizen and exercise his rights without concern about addressing his responsibilities. So these cases become more interesting, even if tedious to follow. The investment of the time, and the cleaning of reading glasses lenses frequently, in the opinion of El Gringo Viejo, is well worth it. El Zorro is better than a "pretty fair" country lawyer, especially considering that he is self-trained. He is an expert on 2nd amendment law, par excellence, and a worthy commentator on most United States Constitutional issues. He is not the guy at the end of the bar bellowing, "Well, if there ain't no law agin it, there oughta be!" He makes more sense than the $1,000/hour big-city attorneys.
Date Filed: October 15, 2012
Case #: 12-71
Court Below: 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012)
Full Text Opinion:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
PREEMPTION: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
erred in creating and applying a heightened preemption test contrary
to the Supreme Court's authority and in conflict with other circuit
court decisions; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit erred in holding that the National Voter Registration Act
preempted an Arizona law requiring proof of eligibility to register to
vote.
The State of Arizona passed Proposition 200, which amended state
election laws to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote
and when voting. The trial court held Proposition 200 valid, but the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied a heightened preemption
test and reversed in part. The circuit court held that states have no
reserved authority over federal elections and that requiring proof of
citizenship to register to vote directly conflicted with the National
Voters Registration Act's (NVRA) requirement to "accept and use"
federal forms when registering voters for federal elections. The
circuit court affirmed the voter ID requirement at voting stations and
the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the circuit
court erred in holding that the NVRA preempts Proposition 200.
On appeal, Petitioner argues the circuit court erred in using a
heightened preemption analysis that is incongruent with set precedents
and federalism principles. Additionally, Petitioner argues that
because the NVRA and Proposition 200 can be enforced without conflict,
the NVRA does not preempt Arizona's law. [Summarized by Katie Hoesly]
Case #: 12-71
Court Below: 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012)
Full Text Opinion:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
PREEMPTION: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
erred in creating and applying a heightened preemption test contrary
to the Supreme Court's authority and in conflict with other circuit
court decisions; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit erred in holding that the National Voter Registration Act
preempted an Arizona law requiring proof of eligibility to register to
vote.
The State of Arizona passed Proposition 200, which amended state
election laws to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote
and when voting. The trial court held Proposition 200 valid, but the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied a heightened preemption
test and reversed in part. The circuit court held that states have no
reserved authority over federal elections and that requiring proof of
citizenship to register to vote directly conflicted with the National
Voters Registration Act's (NVRA) requirement to "accept and use"
federal forms when registering voters for federal elections. The
circuit court affirmed the voter ID requirement at voting stations and
the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the circuit
court erred in holding that the NVRA preempts Proposition 200.
On appeal, Petitioner argues the circuit court erred in using a
heightened preemption analysis that is incongruent with set precedents
and federalism principles. Additionally, Petitioner argues that
because the NVRA and Proposition 200 can be enforced without conflict,
the NVRA does not preempt Arizona's law. [Summarized by Katie Hoesly]
Once again, worth the effort. If I can work through it, any OROG can!\
El Gringo Viejo
