Election 2008

[bleedorange]

I think it could end up disenfranchising people who don't speak English or aren't well educated or don't know where to go to get an ID. I dont think any of those 3 things should be prerequisites to voting. And certainly not in a scenario when we have no evidence of fraud. Just my opinion.

 

It's a slippery slope, too, as I said above. Where are you going to draw the line?

 

 

So now we should make "being dumb" a protected class of people?

[bleedorange]

And it's not a slippery slope because the line has clearly been drawn thanks to constitutional amendments (unless you're willing to stretch the meaning of "tax" to suit your needs) and a whole history of supreme court opinions over the last 40 years.

[MattZ]

So now we should make "being dumb" a protected class of people?

 

Yes, but don't put it on me. The constitution already did that.

 

And where are you drawing the line on dumb anyway? Should folks have to be literate to vote? Should they know how many representatives serve in the House? How many people in this country voted for Bush because they thought he'd be the better guy to have a beer with? Are we really going to get into how dumb voters are?

 

And it's not a slippery slope because the line has clearly been drawn thanks to constitutional amendments (unless you're willing to stretch the meaning of "tax" to suit your needs) and a whole history of supreme court opinions over the last 40 years.

 

I havent read the briefs filed for the case, but I'd be willing to bet there was an equal protection argument and a due process argument as well. You dont need to shoehorn this into "tax" to suit anyone's needs.

[MattZ]

Yep, just gave a quick read of the dissent. Looks like a few of the justices thought the 1st and 14th amendments were implicated here...

[Guest Jules]

How many people in this country voted for Bush because they thought he'd be the better guy to have a beer with?

[MrRain422]

Well, you might have to pay for a bus ride to a polling place, too. Does that constitute a tax?

 

Only if you are required by the state to take the bus to the polling place.

[Moe_Syzlak]

"The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill

[MrRain422]

I have no problem with people having to do a little work in order to vote.

 

Yeah, people still have to register to vote.

[bleedorange]

Yep, just gave a quick read of the dissent. Looks like a few of the justices thought the 1st and 14th amendments were implicated here...

 

So three justices thought it did and six justices thought it did not. I'm not sure what that means or proves for you.

 

Souter's dissent extrapolates everything out to a hidden and excessive cost. Talk about a slippery slope. Should we start setting up government programs to come to the front door of poor people to provide every service that they need?

 

Breyer's dissent is typical of Breyer and proves that he may be the worst justice in the history of the Supreme Court. If I ever found myself agreeing with one of Breyer's opinions, I would start to question my own sanity. Comparing Indiana to Georgia and Florida has nothing to do with anything. That's not how you determine the constitutionality of any law.

[ikol]

I think it could end up disenfranchising people who don't speak English or aren't well educated or don't know where to go to get an ID. I dont think any of those 3 things should be prerequisites to voting. And certainly not in a scenario when we have no evidence of fraud. Just my opinion.

 

It's a slippery slope, too, as I said above. Where are you going to draw the line?

 

So there are actually people out there who know where to go and how to vote, yet cannot read/speak English and do not know where to go to get an ID?

[MattZ]

So there are actually people out there who know where to go and how to vote, yet cannot read/speak English and do not know where to go to get an ID?

 

Yes. Some states (I think) allow you to register to vote when you walk in to a polling spot. Your friend, you brother, your pastor, your [insert name] can drive you to vote on election day.

 

You are asking a lot of questions in this thread. Let me ask you one. Do you really need a photo ID to prevent fraud? What about the process that NY uses that I stated above? If fraud can be prevented without a photo ID, why not do that?

 

Let me ask you another question... Do you think the 14th Amendment is not applicable here?

[MrRain422]

Also, why does there have to be evidence of voter fraud already in place in order to try to prevent it?

 

 

When politicians pass a law claiming that it will solve a problem that does not exist, doesn't that give you pause, even for a moment, to question what the real purpose of that law is?

[bleedorange]

When politicians pass a law claiming that it will solve a problem that does not exist, doesn't that give you pause, even for a moment, to question what the real purpose of that law is?

 

It depends on the law. But in this case, it is the responsibility of the state government to properly regulate its elections. And unlike you, I see nothing insidious or burdensome about this particular law. I also agree with MattZ in that there are other ways to prevent voter fraud. But this particular law in Indiana, on its face, does not raise any red flags to me.

[ikol]

Yes. Some states (I think) allow you to register to vote when you walk in to a polling spot. Your friend, you brother, your pastor, your [insert name] can drive you to vote on election day.

 

You are asking a lot of questions in this thread. Let me ask you one. Do you really need a photo ID to prevent fraud? What about the process that NY uses that I stated above? If fraud can be prevented without a photo ID, why not do that?

 

Let me ask you another question... Do you think the 14th Amendment is not applicable here?

 

I think a photo ID is a lot better than a signature. Do you think requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm violates the 2nd Amendment? And no, I do not think the 14th Amendment applies here. There is a minimum amount of competency that should be expected of all voters. If requiring citizens to file tax returns (which are a lot more complicated than getting a photo ID) doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, then why would this?

[MrRain422]

You're right, the tax code really should be simplified.

[MattZ]

I think a photo ID is a lot better than a signature. Do you think requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm violates the 2nd Amendment. And no, I do not think the 14th Amendment applies here. There is a minimum amount of competency that should be expected of all voters. If requiring citizens to file tax returns (which are a lot more complicated than getting a photo ID) doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, then why would this?

 

Now you've lost me. The issue here has to do with ensuring that all people -- smart or dumb -- have the fundamental right to participate in the process of electing the government by which they will be governed. As a general matter, a law that ends up restricting the fundamental rights of some citizens but not others violates the Equal Protection Clause. Especially when there are other ways to skin the proverbial cat.

 

Requiring all people to file their taxes -- even if they are difficult -- does not violate the 14th Amendment because filing difficult tax returns does not implicate any fundamental rights. You also can't argue that the law requiring citizens to be 21 to buy alcohol violates the equal protection clause. People under 21 don't have the fundamental right to drink. Your argument is a red herring. The Equal Protection Clause is not meant to cover every person impacted negatively by any law on the book.

 

Re: guns and photo IDs, I have to confess, I've never really thought about it. I do think there are scales though, and while you might argue the right to buy a gun is a fundamental right, I'd argue that voting is higher up the totem pole...

[MattZ]

I've thought about it. I think you could make an argument that requiring photo IDs to buy a gun violates the 2nd Amendment. I am not sure I'd agree with the argument, but I can see the argument.

 

When you restrict the right to vote to prevent fraud, and there are other effective ways to prevent fraud that would not restrict the right to vote, then I don't think you have an argument. Obviously, the Supreme Court and Indiana and you, disagree with me.

[MrRain422]

Well, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court said that a fundamental right to vote for President does not exist, so I guess there's your difference of opinion right there.

[Good Old Neon]

I think we should skip this ballot shit altogether and get with something most Americans understand

[Good Old Neon]

[ikol]

I've thought about it. I think you could make an argument that requiring photo IDs to buy a gun violates the 2nd Amendment. I am not sure I'd agree with the argument, but I can see the argument.

 

When you restrict the right to vote to prevent fraud, and there are other effective ways to prevent fraud that would not restrict the right to vote, then I don't think you have an argument. Obviously, the Supreme Court and Indiana and you, disagree with me.

 

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how this is restricting anyone's right to vote. Having a right to something doesn't mean the government is required to spoonfeed it to you. Requiring someone to get their photograph taken and put on a plastic card for free in order to vote is not infringing on anyone's rights. It may result in some people not voting, but they are the ones waiving their rights, not the government.

[explodo]

I think we should skip this ballot shit altogether and get with something most Americans understand

[Rusty Shackleford]

Now you've lost me. The issue here has to do with ensuring that all people -- smart or dumb -- have the fundamental right to participate in the process of electing the government by which they will be governed. As a general matter, a law that ends up restricting the fundamental rights of some citizens but not others violates the Equal Protection Clause. Especially when there are other ways to skin the proverbial cat.

 

I've never liked invoking the Equal Protection Clause for voting rights cases. If voting was meant to be covered by the 14th amendment, then why did Congress adopt the 15th amendment shortly thereafter? (Not to mention the 19th less-shortly thereafter). I'm sure this is covered in the cases somewhere, but it's always seemed fishy to me.

 

Requiring all people to file their taxes -- even if they are difficult -- does not violate the 14th Amendment because filing difficult tax returns does not implicate any fundamental rights. You also can't argue that the law requiring citizens to be 21 to buy alcohol violates the equal protection clause. People under 21 don't have the fundamental right to drink. Your argument is a red herring. The Equal Protection Clause is not meant to cover every person impacted negatively by any law on the book.

 

Here I disagree. Filing tax returns implicates a fundamental right because if you don't file them, you can forfeit your fundamental right not to go to prison. The tax system puts an affirmative burden on everyone, and on stupid people more than smart ones. I don't have a problem with this, but I wouldn't say that no fundamental rights are implicated.

 

I haven't read the entire opinion, but NPR informs me that it essentially came down to burden of proof and whether the state legislature was due deference in this situation. It's true that Indiana didn't prove voter fraud was a rampant problem, but it's also true that the plaintiffs did not show that disenfranchisement would be a rampant problem as a result of this law either. Without strong evidence one way or another, I think it's appropriate for the courts to back off and let the political process work out its own dirty business.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

the volunteers were tired

heads were hanging low

the news had spoiled their appettite

for stuffing envelopes

twelve points was an awful lot to be down in the polls

with only two weeks to go

shouldering the phone

loosening his tie

his running mate on pricks and pins

hovering beside

the candidate wrote furiously as if to save his life

then hung up the phone and spoke with great conviction

when you're nothing but a boyfriend

dangling by a thread

keep in mind the bottom line

diamonds are a girls's best friend

 

inches from the goal

one thing on his mind

to get behind her desk and make

some big decisions

power can be such a tease

you're always wanting more

it's good to know that just like sex it can be paid for

[MattZ]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.