SCourt Overturns AZ Voter Law

USA TODAY
The Supreme Court ruled handily Monday that Arizona cannot add to federal voter registration requirements by demanding proof of citizenship. The ruling, which could impact other states as well, is at least a temporary victory for liberals who want to expand access to the polls and a defeat for conservatives concerned about potential election fraud.
     In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement -- passed by voters in 2004 -- went too far beyond the 1993 federal "motor voter" law that was designed to simplify voter registration procedures.
     The federal law requires registrants to claim U.S. citizenship on a mail-in post card, under penalty of perjury. The Arizona law requires separate physical proof of citizenship. The justices' decision upholds congressional authority over federal elections and could make it harder for states to impose additional restrictions.
     But Scalia said Arizona could try a different approach to challenge the federal law's pre-emption, thereby holding out the possibility that the state could resurrect its proof-of-citizenship requirement.
     The case represents the lesser of two voting rights cases before the court this term. Far more significant is an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires mostly Southern states with a history of discrimination to clear proposed voting changes with the federal government before implementing them. Arizona is one of the states covered by the provision.   READ FULL ARTICLE

Don't Ignore Sibling Bullying

NBC NEWS
A new study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics is a reminder that bullying also happens at home, between brothers and sisters. And, as with peer bullying, sibling bullying is also harmful to a child or teenager’s mental health, the new research finds.
     “Historically, sibling aggression has been unrecognized, or often minimized or dismissed, and in some cases people believe it’s benign or even good for learning about conflict in other relationships,” says Corinna Jenkins Tucker, lead author of the paper and an associate professor of family studies at the University of New Hampshire.
     “That’s generally not the case in peer relationships. There appears to be different norms for what is accepted. What is acceptable between siblings is generally not acceptable between peers.”
     The mental health consequences of bullying between siblings are real, researchers say. Tucker’s report used data from The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, a phone survey that collected the experiences of 3,599 children aged 1 month to 17 years who had at least one sibling younger than 18 living in the household at the time of the interview. One child was randomly selected to be the subject of three telephone interviews.
     Children ages 10 to 17 answered the questions themselves; for children younger than 10, the parents answered the questions. (Tucker acknowledges this is a potential limitation of the study, as parents may not know as much about sibling conflicts as they might think -- particularly if the children share a bedroom.)    READ FULL ARTICLE