Oh, that one’s easy! Just pass a law saying no one can vote without a special State-issued ID proving their eligibility to vote. Then charge $20 or so for the ID.
It’s not a ‘tax’ and so doesn’t run afoul of the 24th. And it has the worthy goal of minimizing voter fraud. Just ask our resident SDSAB law expert.
If you’re talking about me – not quite. A key element of the Crawford decision was Indiana’s free photo ID. So I, personally, would not argue that a $20 ID meets the requirements laid out by Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections.
But a free ID would. And did!
I wasn’t talking about voter ID, I was talking about a poll tax.
The problem with voter ID laws is a lot like the problem with trying to ban Assault Weapons.
Some people are trying to use the spectre of gun violence to ban assault weapons when 90%+ of gun violence is from handguns.
These same people point out the irrationality of trying to reduce voter fraud by focusing on voter ID when 90%+ of voter fraud is from absentee ballots.
They point out that the REAL purpose behind the voter ID laws probably isn’t to stop the less than 1% of voter fraud that occurs from in person voting and it is really to undermine the voters constitutional rights.
Yet when people point out that the same argument can be made regarding assault weapons, and the gun owners second amendment rights, the argument becomes less convincing.
I fully support requiring a photo ID before each and every gun purchase.
For the record, I eas responfing to Damuri Ajashi’s challenge by showing how a mandatory voter ID card with a required fee could be used to get around the prohibition on poll taxes, by imposing a requirement that is a fee rather than a tax.
While I believe we disagree about the wisdom, need, and effectiveness of required Voter ID, I am pleased that we are in complete agreement on the ergality and constitutionality of the position you outline above. I apologize, I had formed the misperception from your posts in GD threads on voter ID that you believed mandatory ID with fees to be constitutional and legal.
I didn’t realize that lesbians were infertile.
If I could PROVE that banning the sale of assault weapons would save some minuscule percentage of gun deaths every year (probably a higher percentage than the percentage of in person voter fraud, but minuscule nonetheless) and given the compelling state interest in preventing the death of its citizens, don’t I have at least as good an argument for banning assault weapons as I have for denying someone their right to vote if they cannot produce an acceptable form of ID considering the fact that banning assault weapons still leaves you with a wide menu of firearms to choose from while requiring ID could effectively disenfranchise me?
Well, they can’t get each other pregnant. Don’t ask me to defend it any more than that because it doesn’t seem to be an argument that was designed to make sense.
And if a lesbian gets pregnant by rape, she should have to have the baby and give it to a “real” family. Or marry her rapist.
Not even close, no.
We’re championing you not being a dick. Even if you actually were dumb enough to think that we don’t know how rational basis works, you did not have to say the same thing 6 times, treating us like little children who wouldn’t be able to get it the first time. I mean, you even missed that one of those people flat out said they knew that what he said was ridiculous. Why would you do that other than a misplaced sense of having to insult people?
You can lie about your motivations all you want, but your assumption that the rest of us are stupid is your downfall. We can tell when you are being disingenuous. We can tell that your point was to attack, and that the language you used was just to give you plausible deniability so you could insult people more when they objected to you being a douche.
The real world doesn’t work like a court room. We can and will take your past behavior into account. The fact that you can create reasonable doubt means nothing to us. I know that’s something your broken mind can’t comprehend, just like the separation of morality and legality. Just realize that we can “magically” discover your intentions and act accordingly.
Well said.
Bricker, stop pretending this is a courtroom. Pretend it’s a legislature, and you get to vote on what the law should be. Answer the questions posed to you.
You’re right. It’s probably just you.
You, on the other hand, are very intelligent, and you use that intelligence to evade questions. Which is also pretty smart, because you know you’d lose bigtime if you didn’t.
What specific questions am I evading?
I chuckled.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15952794&postcount=48
Sorry if you missed it or I missed your reply.
Can you answer it with your own simple personal opinion, rather than in reference to what the law already says? Pretend your are a legislator about to vote on it.
“Inasmuch as the use of the public highways by persons for whom standard equipment, calibrated for majority right-handed use, is suboptimally designed necessarily incurs additional expenses resulting from the increased risk of accident by drivers with less than ideal control of their vehicles…”
I daresay you could pick holes in that reasoning… thereby admitting the validity of similar hole-poking in the reasoning presented by the poltroons described in the OP.
No, absolutely not.
Okay, thanks.