Other high court decisions Monday:
The Supreme Court on Monday handed down decisions in five cases and agreed to hear two important appeals in the fall. Among the court’s actions:
- Ruled 5-3 that agreements between the makers of name-brand and generic drugs to delay the generics' availability can be illegal, an outcome cheered by consumer groups. (For more on this, see Page A5.)
- Held 5-4 that prosecutors in some instances may use a suspect's silence at an early stage of a criminal investigation against him — before the suspect has been arrested or informed of his constitutional rights.
- Agreed to decide in its next term a new dispute involving race, whether federal housing law requires proof of intentional discrimination.
- Decided 5-4 that judges may not increase mandatory minimum prison terms when sentencing defendants unless the facts justifying the increase have been found by a jury.
- Barred lawyers, in another 5-4 ruling, from obtaining state driver's license records to recruit clients, saying the practice is prohibited by a federal law aimed at shielding motor vehicle information.
- Said it would review a state court ruling upholding a $1.24 million defamation judgment against a Wisconsin airline that reported one of its pilots was potentially dangerous, despite a post-9/11 law that encourages airlines to report potential safety threats to federal officials
— Associated Press
Georgia’s voter law
In 2009, Georgia’s Legislature passed Senate Bill 86. The law requires voter registration applicants to prove their U.S. citizenship. For evidence, they could submit their Georgia driver license or photo identification numbers or copies of their birth certificates or U.S. passports. It also says applicants may submit their alien registration numbers as proof.
To check that information and enforce the law, Georgia officials say they need access to a federal immigration database called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program. For more than a year and a half Georgia has repeatedly requested access to the program, public records show. A spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said Monday that she was looking into the matter.
Arizona’s law
The Arizona law struck down Monday required people registering to vote to show copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or driver’s licenses, that are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.
Sources: Georgia Senate Bill 86 of 2009, Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, The New York Times
Deep coverage
Illegal immigration and its impact on several aspects of our society, including the potential to increase fraudulent voting, has been a contentious issue in Georgia, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been covering how the issue affects the state. Find our previous coverage on illegal immigration and voting regulations at our premium website for subscribers, MyAJC.com.
Decisions still coming
Though the Supreme Court’s term will be over in by the end of next week, its Monday opinions did not include any of the three most-watched of the term: rulings on gay marriage, affirmative action and voting rights. Those could come Thursday — the next scheduled day for opinions — Monday, or, if the court chooses, on an additional day next week. Here’s a look at those cases:
- Gay marriage. The court is due to rule in two cases. One challenges a federal court ruling that a voter-approved California ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the case could have nationwide impact, or it could be limited solely to California. The other case asks the court to uphold a lower court ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. In that case, a New York woman who married another woman in Canada challenged the law after her spouse died and she was barred from claiming a marriage exemption on estate taxes.
- Affirmative action. A case filed by a would-be student against the University of Texas asks it to ban consideration of race in college admissions decision. The court's ruling may settle this long-debated question and could have implications for all sorts of programs that use race as a criterion for eligibility.
- Voting rights. An Alabama case challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all or parts of states with a history of discriminatory practices — mostly in the South and West — to submit any change in their voting systems to the Justice Department for approval before enacting them. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could spell the end of such federal oversight in several states that have been moving to make voter eligibility more stringent.
State officials were trying Monday to determine whether a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling could block a Georgia law requiring would-be voters to prove U.S. citizenship.
By a 7-2 decision, the court ruled Monday that a similar statute in Arizona is pre-empted by federal law.
Georgia lawmakers passed legislation in 2009 requiring voter registration applicants to prove their U.S. citizenship. Yet, state officials said they have not been able to enforce that law because the federal government has not given them access to an immigration database.
Spokesmen for Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens and Secretary of State Brian Kemp said they were still reviewing the court’s decision Monday.
“We cannot comment on the ramifications for Georgia’s law until we’ve had a chance to fully review the ruling,” said Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman for Olens.
But Wendy Weiser, of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University law school, praised the ruling and said it would effectively block Georgia from enforcing its law.
“Under this decision, to the extent that Georgia or any other state requires proof of citizenship in order to be registered using the federal voter registration form, that requirement is not valid under federal law,” Weiser said.
A group of Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations led by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona filed separate lawsuits seeking to block Arizona’s election law. Critics of the law see it as an attack on immigrant, minority and elderly voters. Proponents said the law would help prevent illegal immigrants from registering to vote in Arizona.
The court issued its decision amid a congressional debate about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws. The U.S. Senate is considering sweeping legislation that would boost border enforcement while providing a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S.
The court said Arizona’s statute conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — also known as the Motor Voter Act — which requires states to accept and use a certain federal form for registration. Passed in 2004, Arizona’s Proposition 200 ballot initiative requires officials to reject any voter registration applications unless they are accompanied by proof of citizenship. That proof could include copies of a passport or birth certificate.
But the court also said in its opinion — written by Justice Antonin Scalia — that Arizona could ask the federal government to include state-specific instructions on the federal form and take the matter to court.
On Monday, U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia announced legislation that would allow states to require additional information from voter registration applicants, including information about their citizenship status.
“Georgia and other states have the right — and the responsibility — to enact laws that will preserve the integrity of our elections system,” said the Republican from Marietta, who is running for the U.S. Senate. “This legislation will help safeguard that right.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision. Alito said the court read “an ambiguous federal statute in a way that brushes aside the constitutional authority of the states and produces truly strange results.”
Georgia requires its voter registration applicants to swear or affirm they are U.S. citizens. To prevent fraud, certain first-time applicants are also required to submit copies of photo identification, a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows their names and addresses.
For more than a year and a half, public records show, Georgia has been asking the federal government for access to an immigration database it could use to confirm the U.S. citizenship of those seeking to vote. Kemp’s office said it needs access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to help enforce Senate Bill 86, passed by the state Legislature in 2009. A spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said Monday that she was looking into the matter. Critics of the state’s plans have said there is no evidence to substantiate voter fraud is widespread in Georgia.
Olens — along with counterparts from Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma and Texas — had urged the Supreme Court in a written brief to uphold Arizona’s law, saying that to strike it down would mean “states’ control over elections would be diminished in law and in practice.”
Kemp, whose office oversees elections, said he was disappointed in the court’s ruling. He said Georgia’s law “ensures the integrity of our voting process.”
The National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, and the League of Women Voters of Georgia applauded the court’s decision.
“This is a wonderful, great day of victory, particularly for the voting public,” said Elizabeth Poythress, president of the League of Women Voters of Georgia.
Phil Kent, a member of Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board and the spokesman for Americans for Immigration Control, called the court’s ruling a narrow decision that keeps voter identification requirements intact in Arizona and Georgia.
Said Kent, “Arizona and Georgia can still deny voter registration to anyone who submits a federal form if [they have] other information, such as a state form, that establishes the voter’s ineligibility.”
About the Author
