This article is from the archive of our partner .

"So it's under oath. Big deal." That's not exactly the sort of statement you'd expect from a sitting Supreme Court justice, but here we are.

"Big deal," Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed, during today's arguments concerning Arizona Proposition 200, which mandates proof of citizenship for residents filling out a federal voter registration form. The federal government includes a space on the form for an applicant to indicate that he is a citizen, to swear to it by affirming his signature. "Big deal," says Scalia.

Or, more specifically, Scalia said:

[I]t seems to me you were quite able to argue that in — in refusing to allow you to include in the — in the Federal form in Arizona some indication of proof of citizenship requiring nothing else except oh, I'm a — check off, I am a citizen, right? So it's under oath. Big deal. If — if — if you're willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you're willing to violate the perjury laws.

Which is a nifty little bit of argument, for a few reasons. First, that it is basically an argument against any law. Why have a law, if the person will just break it? Why require proof of citizenship — which, under Proposition 200, means providing a passport or birth certificate — when people could just forge their documents? And, second, there's this, as presented by the plaintiffs' attorney, Patricia Millett.

JUSTICE SCALIA: … [T]he Commission has – has required its — its own proof and the State wants a different kind of proof. The proof the Commission requires is simply the statement, I'm a citizen. This is proof?

MS. MILLETT: This is — statements –

JUSTICE SCALIA: This is not proof at all.

MS. MILLETT: Statements under oath, statements under oath in a criminal case –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Under oath is not proof at all. It's just a statement.

MS. MILLETT: Statements under oath in a criminal case are proof beyond a reasonable doubt by which we execute them. … It's a very serious oath.

And that seems like a pretty solid argument. The American legal system is largely predicated on sworn testimony, either oral or written. Every day, juries are asked to consider sworn testimony — some of it from perjurers, to be sure! — and evaluate the guilt or innocence of a defendant. What else could we do?

And, of course, those documents that the state of Arizona insists be presented are themselves sworn documents: a passport requires any applicant attest to the truth of a submitted application. But someone planning on committing voter fraud could just violate that law, too.

An important caveat: the quotes above come from the Supreme Court's official transcript of the proceedings, undoubtedly transcribed by a court stenographer who swore an oath to represent the proceedings fairly. Big deal. Probably made the whole thing up.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to