The money shot from the Supremes:
Yes, of course. But although these rights of voters are fundamental, not all restrictions imposed by the States impose constitutionally suspect burdens on voters’ rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that, as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.
Each provision of a scheme that governs the registration and qualifications of voters, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects — at least to some degree — the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. Nevertheless, the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.
If only any such thing were actually involved here …
Freedom riders for voter ID? What do you have in mind? Working their shift at McDonalds while they go get an ID? Or babysitting their kids while they go get an ID, or setting up a moonbounce outside the DMV?
So you think that a reaction to trying to steal someone’s vote is inspiring confidence in the system? Or just confidence that voting rights are worth stealing?
A lot of these people don’t think that net recipients of state aid should have the right to vote.
But this is an unreasonable, discriminatory (though of course not facially) restriction, which brings us back to what level of scrutiny is warranted. You say rational basis, and I agree that voter ID laws are valid under that deferential standard. However, I also think application of that standard is absurd. As Scalia noted in Crawford, courts should defer to legislatures unless election laws are “intended to disadvantage a particular class.” We have numerous voter ID proponents admitting on the record that these laws are intended to win elections for Republicans. That sounds like an intent to disadvantage a particular class to me.
Let’s be fair, we need to see at least one election where the disenfranchising occurs.
So basically we need to see one election.
This argument falls flat on its face, given that there are multiple arguments that provide (by the standards Bricker applies to the voter ID issue) valid, morally neutral justifications for the various Jim Crow laws. For instance, there is an obvious case for collecting the cost of a service (such as operating polling places) from the people who actually use it (note that it required a Constitutional amendment to abolish poll taxes; the black-robed overlords who haunt Bricker’s nightmares were apparently unable to nullify them by imperious decree). Likewise, there are clear reasons for preferring that voters be literate and have roots in the community.
Of course, we all know that these reasons were offered mendaciously in support of an already-determined agenda (“keep the blacks down”). They do, however, meet Bricker’s standard of “rational basis” when considered in isolation from this context. In both respects, they precisely parallel the voter ID laws under discussion in this thread.
Sure, why not? The more obvious the better.
Do you consider it a matter of established fact?
While that is true, it only applies to an unknown number of Republicans. Greater than zero, but the actual number is unknown. And its true that some Republicans have inadvertently spoken the truth about their intentions and motives, that doesn’t necessarily mean they all share those motives.
Why, its possible that they are wholly innocent of any such intentions, that they haven’t even heard anything about such an effect! Unless someone directly told them that these laws would adversely affect Democrat voter turnout, and you can actually prove that someone told them, then the pristine purity of their ignorance is a rock-solid defense against the charge of malicious political skulduggery.
After all, you can’t actually prove that they knew it would adversely affect Democrat voter turnout, now can you? Some of them did, sure, but we don’t know how many! And who is to say that they should have known, when such knowledge might make them uncomfortable. Democrats know it, by and large, but they only want to fight ignorance on this subject because it favors their causes, like justice and equality. Liberal hypocrisy, once again!
Sure, they can claim that justice and equality are just as important as voter confidence, but such arguments are weak and can be batted aside easily by liberal hypocrisy, neener-neener, and I Got Mine, Fuck You!
And while its true that restrictions on early voting, Sunday voting, and voter registration drives stink to high Heaven and clearly reveal the malign motives that propel them, those are very different things! Simply because the Republicans can be clearly seen to be suppressing the Democrat vote in those other things doesn’t prove they are motivated that way in the matter of voter id! Some of them are, friend Bricker has admitted as much, but that doesn’t mean they all are! Or even most of them!
After all, isn’t it possible that a meteor could strike a church during Sunday voting drives? There was a meteor strike in Russia just a few weeks ago, and that’s only a few thousand miles away! Can’t say it isn’t possible! And if its possible, that’s the same thing as being reasonable! Maybe the reason we don’t know about all those meteor strikes is because there is no legal mechanism to prosecute them, so we don’t find out about partisan meteor advantage!
As soon as you accept the simple clarity of the Bricker Principle…that a thing that is possible, however remote that possibility may be, then it becomes reasonable! A thing cannot be reasonable unless it is possible, right!? Well, there you have it! The Republicans are not only protecting the voter confidence of the minority voter, but his very life as well!
Of course, that is *extremely *unlikely. But still possible! And possible equals reasonable! Maybe not exactly, but close enough for a Republican. Republicans aren’t big on excruciatingly precise semantic distinctions. Except sometimes. When it comes to protecting voter confidence, and protecting minority voters from meteor strikes, they appear willing to make an exception.
Not speaking for anyone else in this thread but myself, of course, but… my belief and claim is that voting SHOULD trigger some level of elevated scrutiny. It is ESSENTIAL to the functioning of the democracy that it be harder for the legislature to muck with the elections that elect it than it is to change the speed limit or declare national pickle awareness month.
A claim you frequently make when you get into the typical Bricker-vs-lots-of-liberals arguments on the SDMB is “well, then you’re free to go out and get people elected who share your view”. And sometimes that’s a telling retort. But with issues like this, maybe there’s already a (slim) majority of likely voters who share my view, but gosh, most of the voters who share my view would have to wait in line 4 hours to vote whereas the ones who share your view only have to wait 5 minutes, how’d that happen, what an odd coincidence, and thus your side keeps winning the elections… does that prospect really not alarm you?
That’s a pretty weak-sauce retort to a very legitimate point.
To be clear, I don’t think these voter ID laws are as bad as jim crow laws, not even close. I do, however, think that nearly every legalistic defense of them you’ve made could be used, basically word for word, to defend jim crow laws.
Most likely were. Could probably look that up, but I dislike peering backwards into darkness.
I wonder if absent the 24th amendment, bricker would be OK with a poll tax.
And if we got rid of the grandfather clauses, if he would be OK with a literacy test.
Both of those seem to pass a reasonable basis standard.
Right now the black community seems to be taking the attempts at voter suppression personally as black voter turnout was greater in 2012 than white voter turnout and was the highest it has been in recent history. The question is whether they will still take it personally when Hillary is running. Of course the Republicans will probably make you sign your name with your penis (you know, to create voter confidence) before you can vote in THAT election.
I don’t know if a political party is a “class” a lot of legislation is intended to win elections for a particular party.
State legislatures have generrymandered districts so that even where the state votes majority Democrat, they send more Republicans to the House. These same states are moving to split their electoral votes because they are losing the statewide vote count but on a district by district basis, they would end up winning most of the districts. I don’t know that passing these laws are anything more than mere politicking.
The class, for constitutional purposes, is not Democrats but people who have no state identification. The class for factual purposes is of course Democrats.
And the laws continue to exist.
Are these majority voters that share your view hiding from pollsters?
And – in what universe would the requirement to produce photo ID in order to vote result in long wait times for voters that share your view and short wait times for the wise ones that don’t?
Then I guess it’s lucky there’s such strong agreement that Jim Crow laws are bad.
When the Massachusetts legislature (overwhelmingly Democratic) was faced with the prospect of a Republican governor appointing a replacement US Senator (Governor Romney, if Kerry had won in 2004), they passed a law stripping the governor of the power to appoint senators.
When the Massachusetts legislature (still overwhelmingly Democratic) was faced with the prospect of a Democratic governor being unable to appoint a replacement US Senator (Governor Patrick, faced with a vacant US Senate seat when Ted Kennedy died in 2009), they passed a new law allowing the governor to appoint a senator.
But that was just peachy, because, you know, keeping Democrats in power is done not for partisan gain, but because they represent all that is Good, Correct, and Just.
Lord knows it wasn’t simple partisan politicking.
Lets see, four posts, two “neener-neener”, one “liberal hypocrisy”, and one “Fuck you, I got mine, whaddaya gonna do about it, chump!”. That pretty much exhausts your supply of cogent, well reasoned responses.