Recent posts at CIS  below

See  here for the blog.  The CIS main page is here. 

Publication

1. When Tragedy Is the Hallmark of Failed Policy The Death of Agent Nicholas Ivie (Memorandum)

Blogs

2. From Disruption to Dismantling: Feds Turn Up the Heat on MS-13

3. How USCIS Has Tilted DACA Decision-Making

4. DACA Amnesty Stats

5. Grand Old Man of Immigration Bar Weighs In vs. New H-1B Forms

6. The Caption Should Have Read: "EB-5 Investor Ducks Courthouse Camera"

7. ICE Declines to Detain Known Illegal Alien Stopped for Driving on a Suspended License

8. We Should Open Our Eyes to a Wider Set of Migration Issues






SCOTUS To Take Up Immigrant Voting Law

The Supreme Court entered another battle in the nationwide war over voter qualifications, agreeing Monday to consider whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship when people register to vote.

The case won’t affect the Nov. 6 election. The requirement has been blocked by a lower court, and Supreme Court arguments, as yet unscheduled, won’t take place until after Election Day. In June, the justices denied Arizona’s request to lift the lower court order while the state’s appeal proceeded.

But the suit could further set the lines between state and federal control over election procedures, a conflict that dates to the nation’s founding and continues to roil its politics.

The Arizona case involves a 2004 state law passed by voters requiring residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Organizations representing Hispanic and Native American voters, among others, filed suit contending that the requirement violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, informally called the motor voter law, which provides that citizens nationwide can register through a universal voter form, in addition to forms published by state authorities.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, held that while Arizona can require proof of citizenship for its own forms, it could not impose additional requirements on the motor voter registration procedure that Congress authorized.

Arizona argues that the motor voter law sets only a minimum set of registration requirements which states are free to supplement. The plaintiffs argue that the simpler motor voter forms are helpful when conducting registration drives, efforts that could be frustrated because few people are carrying proof of citizenship when they pass by registration tables on the street.

Arizona’s attorney general, Tom Horne, welcomed the Supreme Court’s move. Jon Greenbaum, a lawyer for the challengers, said he was confident the Supreme Court would uphold the lower-court ruling that the Arizona law violates federal law.

SOURCE