The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law.

Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself," Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court's majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn't require such documentation, trumps Arizona's Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states - Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee - have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court's ruling.

The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied," Thomas said in his dissent.

Opponents of Arizona's law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they've counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

The federal "motor voter" law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver's license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law - the one at issue before the court - requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn't require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

POST YOUR OPINION: www.TheOpinionPoll.com

KXNET.COM

http://www.kxnet.com/story/22609910/court-ariz-citizenship-proof-law-illegal

Washington (CNN) –President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped eight percentage points over the past month, to 45%, the president's lowest rating in more than a year and a half, according to a new national poll.

The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning comes as the White House has been reacting to controversies over a massive U.S. government surveillance program; the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of tea party and other conservative groups who applied for tax-exempt status; the administration's handling of last September's attack in Benghazi that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead; and the Justice Department's secret collection of journalists' phone records as part of a government investigation into classified leaks.

The poll indicates that for the first time in Obama’s presidency, half of the public says they don't believe he is honest and trustworthy. And Americans are split on the controversial National Security Agency anti-terrorism program to record metadata on U.S. phone calls, but they support the NSA program that targets records of Internet usage by people in other countries. That doesn't mean they necessarily like what is going on: Just over six in 10 believe that government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.

A slight majority of those questioned in the poll, which was conducted Tuesday through Thursday of last week, disapprove of the actions of the man who leaked sensitive information about the NSA program. A similar number say Edward Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong, should be brought back to the United States and prosecuted.

The president's approval rating stands at 45%, down from 53% in mid-May. And 54% say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his job, up nine points from last month. It's the first time in CNN polling since November 2011 that a majority of Americans have had a negative view of the president.

"The drop in Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The president also dropped 10 points among independent voters, from 47% last month to 37% now, with Obama's disapproval among independents jumping 12 points to 61%.

What's behind the drop?

"It is clear that revelations about NSA surveillance programs have damaged Obama's standing with the public, although older controversies like the IRS matter may have begun to take their toll as well," adds Holland.

Six in 10 disapprove of how Obama is handling government surveillance of U.S. citizens, which is higher than the 52% who disapproved of George W. Bush on the same issue in 2006, when government surveillance was also in the headlines.

Obama's approval rating on terrorism, although still above 50%, has taken a 13-point hit since mid-May. By contrast, his approval rating on domestic issues such as the economy, immigration and the deficit only dropped by two to four points, within the poll's sampling error.

Views of Obama's personal characteristics have also declined.

The number of Americans who think he is honest has dropped nine points over the past month, to 49%. Fifty-seven percent of those questioned say they disagree with the president's views on the size and power of the federal government, and 53% say he cannot manage the government effectively. Fifty-two percent say the president is a strong and decisive leader. That's still a majority, but it's down six points from last month.

Forty-three percent of the public says that the Obama administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 38% saying the administration has been about right and 17% saying it has not gone far enough.

"That's roughly the same reaction that the public had to the Bush administration in 2006 when the details of a similar program to gather phone records were made public," says Holland.

Fifty-one percent say the current NSA program to gather phone records is the right thing to do. By comparison, 54% felt that way about the Bush-era program back in 2006. Two thirds say they feel that the current NSA program on Internet usage is right.

More than six in 10 say the government has collected their phone or Internet data. What is the government doing with all of this information?

Just 8% of all Americans think the government has collected their personal data and is using it to investigate them. Just over half say they think the government has collected their data and stored it somewhere without analyzing it, and one third say they believe that government has not collected and stored any of their personal phone or Internet records.

As for Snowden, 52% disapprove of his actions, with 44% saying they approve of the leaks by the former government contractor. Fifty-four percent say the government should attempt to bring Snowden back to the U.S. and prosecute him for his actions.

Documents Snowden provided to journalists revealed the existence of the secret NSA programs to collect records of domestic telephone calls in the United States and the Internet activity of overseas residents. Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong, was fired from his position at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton earlier this month. The FBI is investigating the leaks.

The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International June 11 to 13, with 1,014 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

POLITICALTICKER.COM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/cnn-poll-obama-approval-falls-amid-controversies/?hpt=hp_c2

It’s fascinating that two Latino men — both of whom are farther to the right of where most Latinos stand on immigration — are at the epicenter of the current reform debate.

Both Cuban-Americans, Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, represent the young, multicultural new face of what could someday become a diverse and welcoming Republican Party.

Until then, they’ll be two of the most important Hispanic political players that many Latinos don’t much care for.

As an architect of the Senate’s compromise bill, Rubio — who in February graced the cover of Time magazine as “The Republican Savior” and “the new voice of the GOP” — would probably emerge unscathed if the reform measure fails in the Senate.

Oh sure, there were mini-freakouts recently when some liberal commentators — who had up to then expressed only an increasing admiration for Rubio’s evolving leadership on immigration — began to worry that Rubio would come out against his own bill.

And liberal Latinos had already started pitching fits when he began talking about not voting for his own bill unless more border security measures were included. The complaints started building when Rubio announced he’d be submitting an amendment requiring immigrants to prove they could read, write and speak English before earning a green card.

Yet Rubio — who fits a comforting narrative of charming, bilingual, pulled-himself-up-by-his-bootstraps son of immigrants — enjoys a benefit of the doubt that will keep him in the good graces of both the general public and the Republican Party.

Ted Cruz? Not so much.

Aside from tea partiers who just couldn’t be happier to have a Latino in their ranks who’s as passionate about abolishing the IRS and repealing Obamacare as they are — Tea Party Nation recently proclaimed Cruz “an absolute American Hero” — the junior senator from the Lone Star State seems to turn people off wherever he goes.

Many Hispanics — even independent and moderate Republican ones — are horrified by him. Cruz gets slammed not only for his ultra-conservative political views and his inability to speak Spanish, but particularly for his belief that current and former immigrants living in the U.S. illegally should not be eligible for citizenship.

A recent Latino Decisions poll found that 69 percent of Hispanic voters view Rubio more favorably for stating that the 11 million unauthorized immigrants deserve compassion. Only 28 percent view Cruz more favorably in light of his anti-citizenship stance.

Personality matters in politics. If Cruz were more convivial — like, say, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who holds much the same views on granting citizenship — it would be easier for Cruz to get away with sticking to his convictions. But the self-promoting, outspoken — some say arrogant — Cruz doesn’t have that kind of wiggle room.

Seen as a politically expedient figure, Cruz ticked off fellow Republican senators by openly criticizing them for their behind-the-scenes complaints of his strident anti-gun-control stance and filibuster threats in the weeks before the bill on background checks failed in the Senate.

Most of all, Cruz fails on that ever-important Republican stumbling block of tone. He seems constantly scowling and mad as hell, etc., etc.

Hey, some people like that. At times, it’s even warranted, but it’s hard to warm to.

Not that Cruz needs any warmth from the likes of moderates; he’s got plenty of gushing fans. Regardless of how much anyone dislikes his tone or apparent lack of esteem for his political elders, Cruz — like Rubio — conspicuously represents a community that so far has not been able to rise to superstar status as issue-movers or potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party.

In this spotlight, Cruz and Rubio represent two fundamental truths: Republicans, like Hispanics, are an ideologically diverse bunch. And, no matter the outcome of this immigration reform battle, the profile of Latinos in American politics has been elevated.

DALLASNEWS.COM

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130616-esther-cepeda-rubio-and-cruz-latino-superstars-with-far-different-agendas.ece