Skip to main content

At this moment, the top rated diary on the Rec List claims that the Supreme Court rejected Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The diary is based on a misunderstanding of Supreme Court procedure and spreads false information.  I urge the diarist to take it down or change the title and update the diary.

The Supreme Court merely refused to grant a stay of the law pending while it makes its way to the court.  The vote of the justices indicates nothing about how they view the merits of the case.  The vote indicates only that the justices do not view the situation as an emergency and prefer to allow the case to make it's way

Stays are unusual; they require that irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted.  The Court prefers that cases make their way to the Court following normal procedure.

A justice's vote on a stay application does not indicate how he or she will vote when the case makes it's way to the Supreme Court.

Here is what the Supreme Court says about stays:

Case law has established four general criteria that
the  applicant normally must satisfy in order for the
Court to grant a stay.  They are:
1.  that there is a “reasonable probability” that four
Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review
the merits of the case;
2.  that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of
the  Cour t  wi l l   conc lude  upon  revi ew  that   the  
decision below on the merits was erroneous;
3.  that irreparable harm will result from the denial
of the stay;
4.  finally, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may
f ind  i t  appropr iat e   to balanc e   the   equi t i e s ,  by
e x p l o r i n g   t h e   re l a t i v e   h a rms   t o   t h e   a p p l i c a n t  
and respondent, as well as the interests of the pub­
lic at large.


The order of the Court, denying a stay, means nothing.  It is not a ruling, it is not precedent, it does not address the merits,and it does not indicate how the Justices will vote when the case reaches them.

Mr Diarist, tear that diary down!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  voter id law enjoined for 2012 (4+ / 0-)

    While not a final ruling, it is a Big F Deal

    •  Might have been if that's what happened, (0+ / 0-)

      but it isn't. The voter id provisions were upheld.

      It does mean that people can register, using the "Federal Form", and not be required to submit proof of citizenship along with the form. Attestation of citizenship is enough.

      It's not nothing, but it is not a BFD, at least to the extent the commenters in that diary were raving on about this shows that the voter suppression laws are in big trouble, Roberts has seen the light, or, most laughably, that lifting the stay shows that Thomas & Scalia are somehow on the side of those attacking the AZ law.

  •  I don't know about this particular (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes

    case, but often I've noticed that diarists, especially those responsible for a diary on the rec list, often ignore it when inaccuracies in their diary or title are pointed out. It's almost as if a certain bond is formed between diary and diarist, and the instinct is to protect the diary at all costs, even when it becomes obvious that it is wrong. When 100 people tell you you've written a great diary, it's hard to interrupt their cheers with the news that you are full of shit.

    •  "...full of shit"? A little over the top? Diarist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      may have made an error in final determination; but in fact, the lack of a "stay" means the current voting situation stands, for now---no further docs are needed at voting time.

      •  That's not what the court held. (0+ / 0-)
        We uphold Proposition 200’s requirement that voters show identification at the polling place, but conclude that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s registration provision as that provision is applied to applicants using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the “Federal Form”) to register to vote in federal elections.
        Good as to registration, no help at the polling place, where voters still need a photo ID with name & address, or two non-photo IDs with name & address. (This assumes AZ is going to enforce it, as it is entitled to do after the court's decision.)

        The comments were far more over the top than the diary, but the diarist led people to the edge & they happily jumped off.

  •  Looks like your correction is called for... (7+ / 0-)

    I actually noticed your diary first when I checked rec list. A premature celebration of the "good news," as it was interpreted in the first diary, should be noted and corrected.

    However, I saw this link in that diary's comments, from The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

    While Arizona can still seek Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit decision, today's Supreme Court's decision makes it unlikely that the Court would grant such a request.
    That response, by lawyers, seems to indicate that perhaps there is more "sway" in their non stay than you see in it.

    I'd like to know what your response is to that.

    Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

    by NYCee on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 05:36:41 AM PDT

  •  Took a while for the truth to get its boots on (0+ / 0-)

    in that one, for sure. But as we know, "...a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." And the commenters sure heard what they wanted to hear.

    Another blow to the reality based community but not of any great practical importance, IMHO. Kinda sorry I wasted the time yesterday reading the actual decision.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site