- In all three states, there is agreement with the Court’s decision to leave intact the portion of Arizona’s law¬†that allows Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of any person stopped for any reason. Kansans agree with that part of the decision by a 3:1 margin; Floridians by 2:1; Californians by a more narrow 5:4 margin.
- In all three states, there is 5:3 agreement with the Court’s decision to strike down the portion of Arizona’s law that¬†made it a state requirement for illegal immigrants to register with the federal government.
- By 5:4, both Kansas and Florida adults disagree with the Court’s decision to strike down the part of Arizona’s law¬†that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work in Arizona. Californians are equally divided on that question.
- Each state is split over the Court’s decision to strike down the part of Arizona’s law that allowed police to arrest any person, without a warrant, if the officer believed the person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation.
- By an 18-point margin, Kansans say¬†states have the right to create immigration laws that preempt federal law. Floridians and Californians split.
- Majorities in each state — between 52% and 55% — say the Supreme Court’s ruling either benefits both major Presidential candidates equally or benefits neither of them. The remainder of Californians and Kansans think the ruling benefits Barack Obama by a 3:1 margin; Floridians also think the ruling benefits Obama, but by a smaller margin.
In a separate SurveyUSA poll conducted in greater San Diego, 50% of those familiar with the Mount Soledad cross controversy disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear an appeal in that case; 45% agreed.