Reasonable regulations are permitted for the exercise of almost any right, including as Bricker mentioned, having to produce ID to purchase a firearm.
It has also been mentioned that the government may not forbid the purchase of ink and paper as a corollary to free speech or the press. What if government then passes health and safety laws saying that in order to shop in an office supply store (to buy ink and paper) that a person must wear a shirt and shoes?
Would anyone seriously argue that since some people cannot afford shoes (or cannot afford transportation to the store) that these regulations infringe upon a free press? Would we be asking for mobile government units to deliver free pens and paper to poor homes?
In my mind the “barriers” to a cost free state issued ID are the same de minimis sort of infringements that would be permissible under almost any scheme.
As the Supreme Court explained in Grosjean v. American Press Co.,
297 U.S. 233 (1936) :
In short summary, the words “freedom of the press,” as appear in the First Amendment mean the freedom to exercise publication and entail such activities as carry a tight nexus to publishing.
Should the stated justification be the only criterion on which to judge whether the purpose of the law is biased? Or should the reasonably-anticipated effects be considered, too?
To what extent must the stated neutral justification be rooted in reality?
What if the legislature proposes to cut absentee ballots, and cites the public health purpose of preventing tongue-based paper cuts while sealing envelopes?
Given that the Supreme Court is demonstrably wrong in their supposition about the impossibility they cite, I’m not entirely sure this is a reasonable point they make, but that’s besides the point.
As far as your point, it seems to hinge on that final sentence of what you quote, and I’m afraid I don’t understand it. Could I ask you to dumb it down for me?
I’m a Trump supporter, and I support getting rid of absentee ballots; they decrease social engagement in the election process. The physical act of going to a polling place and standing in line with your fellow community members to cast a vote, secure in the knowledge that your vote is secret and your vote is free to be different from theirs is one of the most positive, democratic experiences on earth.
For people who are unable to physically attend due to illness or injury, I’d support a “roving ballot-box” initiative, with poll watchers and poll workers going around in a van to the homes and hospitals of those who register for it.
Like I just show up at the voting station and give them my fingerprint?
Assuming that there are some accommodations for people who don’t have fingerprints, I don’t see the problem.
Blacks are no less likely to have them than whites. Poor are no less likely to have them than the wealthy or middle class. Noone has to go out of their way to get a fingerprint, God gave them one at birth.
What about a PIN system. Seem like it would resolve the whole photo ID and stolen absentee issue.
When I register to vote, I pick a 12 digit number (or one is randomly assigned) that I put on my envelope or give the poll worker. They check it against the data base and if it is correct then my vote is counted.
Sure. The idea is that the freedom to print newspapers means that certain other things must also be protected by that same freedom, because one simply can’t print newspapers without ink.
So the Supreme Court says that when the First Amendment protects free press, it necessarily protects the purchase of paper and ink, because the very ability to print a paper means you have to use paper and ink.
But they’re not de minimus. The laws would never have been introduced if the effect was de minimus.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that these laws were passed with the explicit stated intent of affecting voting outcomes. If they didn’t reduce minority voting, no one would bother agitating for the law at all. The “voter confidence” stuff is a transparent ploy to accommodate the letter of the law. No one actually believes it. The arguments about voter fraud are likewise just lies. No one actually believes that voter fraud (of the kind which would be prevented by these laws) occurs at any effective level (well, the uninformed electorate believes that, because we’re lying to them).
I’m curious what the cost of a fingerprint scheme would be. We’d have to train all the poll workers how to take fingerprints (and maintain training for new workers). We’d have to buy ink (and buy new ink every year). We’d have to buy soap and paper towels to clean up. We’d have to buy extra paper (need space for the fingerprint). Maybe a lot of extra paper (probably many people will have to try multiple times). There’s the extra time incurred–taking a fingerprint takes time. There’s storage costs…
My wild estimate: 15 billion dollars in additional costs.
What if those regulations are created for the explicit stated purpose of preventing a group of people from buying firearms (say, people likely to vote against Clinton)? And the laws are tested to make sure they actually have the intended effect of preventing those people from buying firearms? And Obama gets up on stage and makes up a lie about the reason for the regulations. Let’s say he claims the laws were created for the purpose of “improving confidence in the firearms purchase process” (but everyone knows it’s a lie)/
I assume this is a parody of the legitimate claims that some people can’t easily get ID, but even in parody, the argument fails.
What about people who lose their ID or their PIN or didn’t get the thing or whatever. Some number of people who have the right to vote are going to be prevented from voting by any system you come up with that adds a barrier to voting. So if the system doesn’t provide a tangible benefit, why do it?
Some people actually will get evicted and lose their PIN. Or whatever. Annoying bad shit happens on election day to some unlucky few.
True story: I couldn’t find my wallet this November 8. As I was leaving the house, I realized it wasn’t in my pocket. I realized I didn’t need it that day, and I was already late for work, so I did without it for the day. Since I voted absentee (and as far as I know I wouldn’t need my ID to vote in California anyway), it didn’t matter. But what if I had lived in some other state? Yeah, it was dumb of me to misplace my wallet. I almost never do that. But I got unlucky that day. Is my error justification enough to deny me a vote? I’m pretty glad the legislature of CA doesn’t think so.