Yesterday they issued another decision that I think they decided correctly. They struck down an Arizona law requiring people to submit proof of citizenship before using a federal form to apply for a voter registration certificate (as required under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act -- the so-called "Motor Voter" law). They ruled it was unconstitutional for the state to add requirements for complying with a federal law.
I'm sure we'll be hearing right-wingers whine that this will allow non-citizens to vote in our elections. That is nonsense. This decision doesn't change the requirements to get a voter registration in any way -- it simply upholds the easy application for a voter registration certificate, which is exactly what was intended by the federal law (to make applying easier for citizens).
What the decision does is to state unequivocally that a state cannot change a federal law -- by either adding or removing requirements for complying with that federal law. The only entity that can change the requirements of a federal law is the federal government itself.
This may not sound like too important a decision to some, but it is very important -- especially in this era of state Republican governments trying to alter or even eliminate certain federal laws in their particular state. And the decision could be applicable in areas other than voting rights (such as federal gun laws or health care laws).
The Supreme Court got this one right.
OK, so I don't think I understand how a DNA swab after arrest is the same as fingerprinting. If the arrest is in error like they are doing a dragnet and I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, they've got my DNA forever (in my opinion DNA is much more than just a fingerprint). Am I mis-interpreting this decision?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how DNA and fingerprints are different in the legal system. They are used in exactly the same way, and both can identify one particular person. You are right that they have your DNA forever if you are arrested -- but they also have your fingerprints forever also. And neither is shared with anyone or any organization that doesn't have a legal need to know. If it is unconstitutional to take DNA, then it must also be unconstitutional to take fingerprints.
ReplyDeleteThe following is my source for some of the comments below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/04/privacy-experts-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-swabs-could-lead-to-big-brother-scenario?page=2
"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - (I never thought I'd be interested in what he says.)
The FBI's system of DNA profiles, known as the Combined DNA Index System, (CODIS), already contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of arrestees. (That's a lot.)
At oral arguments in February, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor sarcastically noted that if DNA swabs work so well, "why don't we do this for anybody who comes in for a driver's license?" (I hope she hasn't given anyone any ideas along this line.)
"The same way that the social security number has become a ubiquitous identifier, you could imagine using DNA. It's a lot harder to fabricate. Instead of having someone fill out forms at the doctor's office, why not swab someone's cheek," says Murphy, the NYU law professor. "I think those are real concerns." (So do I.)
(My note) Like most new tools, we tend to make them the tool of choice without fully vetting all avenues of error and misuse. And like all legal pronouncements, we are assured that we won't wind up in some national database. I am a progressive secular humanist (not an NRA Tea Bagger) with real life concerns based on many years of watching how our best intentions have been twisted and have not been used for our best intentions. Just sayin...
It is in a national law enforcement database, just like fingerprints -- and I still don't see the difference between the two. And being arrested is a lot different than applying for a driver's license. I am also a progressive secular humanist -- but it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
ReplyDelete