Supreme Court Kills Arizona 'Proof of Citizenship' Law
Justices say anti-immigrant measure interferes with federal law
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Jun 17, 2013 10:19 AM CDT
Hilda Canales, 40, joins hundreds of protestors in a May Day march through the streets of downtown Phoenix, May 1, 2013.   (AP Photo/Valeria Fernandez)

(Newser) – The Supreme Court today struck down an Arizona law requiring people to show proof that they're US citizens in order to register to vote. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the law, which was approved by voters as a ballot proposition, conflicted with a 1993 federal law designed to make voter registration easier, and that the federal law takes precedence, the AP reports.

Conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito cast the two dissenting votes, but the majority opinion was written by conservative champion Antonin Scalia, Reuters reports. It's the first of a number of huge rulings expected from the high court this week. A couple other minor rulings came down today as well, including:

  • In a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that if suspects refuse to talk to police before they're read their Miranda rights, prosecutors can use that silence against them in court.
  • The court said that lawyers can not use information from state driver's license databases to recruit clients, because it violated a federal privacy law protecting motor vehicle records, in another 5-4 decision.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Your Take
2%
2%
13%
35%
7%
42%
35% of people agree
that it's Brilliant
Check Out Another Brilliant Story
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 184 comments
People_Suck
Jun 17, 2013 7:44 PM CDT
You can register to vote without being a citizen. Nice. I get more amazed every day on how F'D up this country really is.
KimKendall
Jun 17, 2013 6:37 PM CDT
how do republican voters pretend their republican supreme court appointees represent common sense now?
numberdude
Jun 17, 2013 5:02 PM CDT
Why does Newser staff writer Kevin Spak, choose to sub-title this article as an "anti-immigrant" measure? It had NOTHING to do with immigration, either pro or con.The law, which was struck down, was intended to PROTECT our American voting system by ensuring that only citizens vote. There was absolutely nothing against immigration in this law. This is a perfect example of how bias subletly slips into modern-day "journalism". You have to keep your eye out for it at all times!