I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

14th amendment:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So there is a penalty for Voter ID laws it just has never been enforced.

@Bricker

No. Because the requirement to show ID enforce voting does not amount to a denial, as the Supreme Court settled in Crawford v. Marion County.

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think that case was bullshit.

I’m allowed to have an opinion that concurrs with the dissent and not the majority.

Sure. But if your first post in this little subthread had said, “In my opinion, there should be this penalty for Voter ID laws, but it’s never been enforced because the courts don’t agree with my opinion,” I would have not responded. You can have any opinion you wish.

No, but it allows a prosecution after the fact.

How so?

By adducing evidence that the particular person was the one that actually voted. With no ID, the illegal voter can later simply deny he was the one casting the illegal ballot. (See Ramon Cue of Miami).