Thread

Supreme Court permits states to use SAVE database for citizenship checks

79 points · 105 comments · speckx

goatlover · 1790365865 · focus · HN ↗
Why do the courts even entertain this administration's requests when Trump has made it clear he wants to unconstitutionally take some form of control over state elections because he doesn't want Democrats to retake control of Congress?
The only conclusion seems to be that conservative majorities on SCOTUS and the Eighth Circuit want this to happen as part of their unitary executive theory.
An even more cynical conclusion is that they want the next two elections to be tampered with in favor of the Republican Party, so they remainin in control of the Federal government.
1. sejje · 1790366146 · focus · HN ↗
  Do you mean that foreign nationals voting in American elections is what Democrats need to retake control of Congress?
  Which is the unconstitutional part?
  1. coin · 1790366541 · focus · HN ↗
    The States decide who they send to Congress to represent them. The Federal government has no right to interfere in how the States makes this determination.
    > Do you mean that foreign nationals voting in American elections
    In minuscule insignificant amounts. See The Heritage Foundation's own findings.
    petcat · 1790367063 · focus · HN ↗
    > The Federal government has no right to interfere in how the States makes this determination.
    The federal government is not forcing states to use the SAVE database. They are simply not interfering with states that want to use it to "make this determination".
    sejje · 1790371454 · focus · HN ↗
    What did he mean, then? How will this action to prevent foreign nationals from voting in American elections secure the win for Republicans?
    b5n · 1790375338 · focus · HN ↗
    Implying that this administration and its sycophantic accomplices act in good faith is itself a bad faith argument.
    sejje · 1790401351 · focus · HN ↗
    That wasn't my implication/argument
  2. cosmicgadget · 1790368524 · focus · HN ↗
    What a crazy thing to commit a felony for. Almost beyond belief.
    sejje · 1790401387 · focus · HN ↗
    By the hundreds: <a href="https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/07/21/governor-software-error-non-citizens-register-vote/" rel="nofollow">https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/07/21/governor-software-er...
  3. goatlover · 1790392969 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not aware of foreign nations voting in US elections. That's up to the states to prevent as is their Constitutional duty. But no, Democrats are doing quite well in the polls, and have performed well in special elections with large turnouts in primaries.
2. tasty_freeze · 1790366303 · focus · HN ↗
  The Supreme Court ruled that it is 100% constitutional for states to disenfranchise voters based on party affiliation. I am not constitutional expert so I'll take them at their word that this is indeed the case.
  So you'd expect that there would be a bipartisan movement to fix this by making a constitutional amendment to establish it as a right. We're a democracy after all. Despite the cries that "both sides do it" one side would fight tooth and nail to block any such effort, and I'm disappointed that the other side has given up and isn't willing to fight tooth and nail to promote the issue.
  Yes, it is a tricky issue to make rules that guarantee fairness in elections and there are people who spend their lives figuring out ways to undermine democracy. But certainly we can put in some legal boundaries that make things limit the worse abuses.
  1. anigbrowl · 1790367237 · focus · HN ↗
    No it didn't. Is this some interpretation of yours based on a decision about gerrymandering maybe? I suggest you try again without treating your inferences as shared facts.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790368314 · focus · HN ↗
    The opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/18-422/" rel="nofollow">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/588/18-422/) is pretty clear. The North Carolina and Maryland redistricting committees both sought to override the will of the voters. They had specific, explicit goals for precisely how many Democrats and how many Republicans should be elected in their state, and they knew the voters would not vote in accordance with those goals, so they redrew the maps in a successful attempt to ensure the partisan balance they desired. To me that's a clear example of disenfranchisement.
    The Supreme Court didn't quite rule that this was constitutional, I suppose, only that no court is allowed to consider the question.
    anigbrowl · 1790378407 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
3. legitster · 1790367234 · focus · HN ↗
  I know people are generally really cynical of SCOTUS these days (with some warrant), but SCOTUS is at least supposed to be neutral towards the other branches. Their job is to interpret the law, not pick and choose favorites.
  In this case, I think they are not completely unreasonable. This specific move is one of the things the executive branch has been allowed to do, by previous legislators who gave it this power.
  1. cosmicgadget · 1790368460 · focus · HN ↗
    > it's my wife's fault we raised the flag upside down on January 6
    Yeah, there's quite a lot of reason to believe SCOTUS is political. I think the simplest one: the conservative justices lied and/or told half-truths about their views on Roe v Wade. Under oath. The ones who lied are liars. The ones who dodged the question are politicians.
    legitster · 1790370186 · focus · HN ↗
    Sotomayor literally made the same types of claims about DC v Heller during her confirmation hearing, despite later joining a dissent to overturn the results. So if that's the case it runs both ways.
    It's also worth pointing out that there is a gulf of difference between how a court interprets law and the constitution, and how a court interprets a previous "Precedent". Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent, but much less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.
    cosmicgadget · 1790382381 · focus · HN ↗
    Interested to read about these claims (and which case intended to overturn DC v Heller) but that would just make the Roberts court more political.
    > Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent
    Yes, we've seen the death of stare decisis.
    > less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.
    They have to work harder to do it but this court has not been shy about reinterpeting everything through the Calvinball (originalism) lens.
4. pocksuppet · 1790385429 · focus · HN ↗
  Stop calling it a theory. It's an excuse.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.