Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Arizona Court of Appeals upholding the State's controversial voter ID law after the Department of Justice said it discriminated against minorities at the same time ago.
They struck down the provision require proof of citizenship judge and -- in a volatile Fox News senior judicial analyst joins us here on the -- could see this.
-- curious ruling.
Yes voting is racially polarizing.
Ghastly -- are discriminated against blacks at the -- -- -- Well the Justice Department argued that the fact of the ID law.
That is having to physically show a government issued ID at the time you vote would suppress minority voting.
Because a lot of minorities for whatever reason don't have a valid government issued ID right and the law of the land is that the state does something that.
Suppresses a minority group or some -- -- minority group differently than it affects the majority on the law arguably violates the fourteenth amendment sure.
But this Court of Appeals the most liberal.
Federal appellate court in the country said there's no significant evidence of disparate impact on there that never that Justice Department -- just making a political argument and the state has the right to have you show your ID why did they say that because the Supreme Court the United States has basically said that -- of the lenient that the war is neutral and just intended.
To secure the soundness of elections and there's no evidence that this is adversely -- one -- group more than another the state can require you to present anti that was to 2008 US Supreme Court decision involving India has great court upheld their voter identification on fact it was -- Who wrote the decision that he any liberal now retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens now there's the other hand.
Right which is.
You who do not have to show proof of citizenship you can -- show up and -- I attached to -- OK so Arizona says to those who register voters you shall require proof of citizenship that doesn't mean.
Verbal assertion that one as a citizen but some documentation.
That one as a citizen.
The ninth circuit says what you can't do that.
Because in the Clinton years in 1993.
-- a democratic congress and a democratic president enacted a statute that superseded.
State law federal law trumps state law correct and several you can do is ask if the person is a sex -- and that they say no they don't vote if if they say yes you then -- -- the other questions like where do you live and how long have you lived here but it's under penalty of perjury it is under penalty of perjury but what this means it is a federal court is saying.
A federal statute.
Trumps the ability of the states to assure that only citizens vote that's an issue.
Ripe for Supreme Court review right let's put up on the screen we have some.
Fox News polls on this very issue voter identification seventy -- 70%.
Say it's needed to stop illegal voting just 26% say -- and this -- there are are American's right about that it may be a minor inconvenience.
But it will eliminate voter fraud and him.
Person -- well and and not only is there an overwhelming majority in favor of these type of laws but the simple -- maturity on the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts saying.
What it's done in a neutral way.
It's absolutely acceptable and inconveniences -- and us.
Opponents say it's an attempt to disenfranchise.
Minorities and the poor and -- rain.
The Republican Party.
An advantage in local election you know I didn't know -- -- every state in the union will give you an ID whether you have a driver's license or not -- it looks like a driver's license.
It has everything on -- and I like a driver's license does but doesn't authorize you to drive but it does prove who you are.
And you use this when you go to the TSA when when you go to the airport and now in many states when you go to vote.
And I was Steven's point wasn't it.
He he suggested the outcome though could be different in a state where voters could provide.
Evidence of their rights been impaired.
And have to go right now.
The flip side of this is if the Justice Department does mind.
But does that disparate impact but not enough poor people can get these dikes and that the ID requirement is suppressing the vote of an identifiable class -- the courts will -- but there was no evidence of that in Arizona.
Tanner an apology not always learn a lot potential.
At home when you -- great cry like for a thank you very much kids and -- -- -- That's it.
Filter by section