Depends on the state and its own constitution. But voter ID exists in over 30 states, it can’t exactly be unconstitutional on its face to have a voter ID requirement.
There’s another constitution than that, isn’t there? Here, I’ll help: The one with the equal protection requirement, that applies to all the states too.
Several of those have had those laws invalidated by the courts on constitutional grounds, other suits are still in process. The prevalence of such measures is not an indicator of their constitutionality, only of the effectiveness of your party’s national campaign to suppress the opposition’s voter turnout. That is the “constitutional defect” that *cannot *be fixed. **Bricker **is still insisting that there’s a neutral reason, some nonsense he’s stuck with about “voter confidence”, but there is no evidence whatever of it being a problem or of voter ID being a solution to it. But you know all that, too - and he has had to lecture you about it!
Have you always been this ridiculous?
Most of those voter laws are longstanding. It’s the new, tougher laws being passed that are being challenged, some successfully, some not. The Supreme Court has also ruled on voter ID, and found Indiana’s requirement constitutional, and not by a 5-4 partisan margin, but by 6-3.
I KNOW Crawford has been mentioned here, so I’m wondering just where the hell your head is at.
And BTW, in that same case, Stephen Breyer wrote that he supports voter ID laws as long as there is not a substantial burden. So on the matter of what the US Constitution allows, 7 out of 9 justices say exactly what I said: that as long as a voter ID law doesn’t impose an onerous burden on voters, it is constitutional. At least as far as the federal government is concerned.
You’re truly a force of nature.
And as any scientifically literate person knows, the forces of nature are mindless.
No matter what you say, saying “Crawford” is sufficient to prove you’re wrong. Voter ID is constitutional, period. Not all voter ID requirements are constitutional, but the fact that voter ID laws are permissible under the right circumstances is indisputable.
You’re dismissing the “problem” of undue burden as tangential and solvable, while not realizing that creating undue burden is the entire fucking point. :rolleyes:
Said the judge, in terms so clear and comprehensive that PA is not even appealing: Cut the shit.
Just for a prominent example of the current state of jurisprudence.
Now go back and read the thread. You have some serious catching up to do.
Why? Did SDMB overturn Crawford on page 52?
Stay ignorant if you like. There are consequences for that on this board, though. Consequences which, to be fair, have so far failed to affect your conduct in any way.
Nicely spun! We are offered the image of liberals whining and wringing their hands over a triviality, the mere fact that an economically disadvantaged citizen has less access to voting than his wealthier counterpart. You invite us to think of that as inconsequential and insignificant, unworthy of serious attention.
Really? Well, OK, can you offer us some justification why that should be so? Race is not a valid basis for discrimination in access to voting, but relative wealth is? Why? Sez who?
You could, of course, go all originalist on our asses, and point out that many of the Founding Fuckups were firmly convinced that the governance of our nation is best placed in the hands of the prosperous and only persons of property were persons of merit. If you believe that, then you can fold your hands across your belly in sublime contentment, your views are well established in both law and custom.
Is it just? Is it right? You haven’t time for such minor concerns, you are too busy protecting the sacred value of voter confidence.
And again! “Merely” because “some” of its designers are scoundrels. Ah, that lovely word “some”, so much mischief can be hidden beneath it. And “merely”! Again, we are offered that the access to voting rights of our less prosperous citizens is a triviality, something we can safely ignore so long as our more worthy citizens are not tormented by the grim spectre of voter fraud! CASA volunteers, gnawing like termites at the foundations of the Republic!
The citizen who spends hours waiting on line to vote, do you think he doesn’t know that his more advantaged fellow citizen does not endure such a burden?
How is his voter confidence impacted, knowing that his elected legislature holds his value so cheaply? Are we to believe he is content, reassured, that even though his voting access is purposely and maliciously impaired… well, that’s OK, because voter confidence?
Can’t always tell with you, so I’ll ask directly: you shitting me?
You assume i haven’t been following this thread since I entered it. From what I’ve seen, your response to the fact that voter ID laws are constitutional has been less than logical.
Says the guy who actually accused Bricker of lying. I’d say it’s your conduct which is questionable.
Yes, but I actually think he’s shitting himself, too. Nobody but our other little friend here would willingly take all that derision for saying something he *knew *was shit; he’d simply shut up and move on. But **Bricker **is so invested in believing in his own righteousness that he can’t face the reality he’s being shown.
adaher, it’s already established that you are the sole active participant on this board less honest than Bricker, to the point where *he *is calling you out on it. He is at least *trying *(though failing ridiculously) to come up with a plausible neutral justification for these laws other than the obvious one, but you’re not up to even that trivial task.
This word “honest” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The only person here being dishonest is you, through the baseless aspersions you’ve cast on Bricker’s honesty which you contradicted in the previous sentence:
** But Bricker is so invested in believing in his own righteousness that he can’t face the reality he’s being shown.**
Now if you’ll concede the constitutionality of voter ID, then we can get on with talking about whether it’s really necessary or not. I’m willing to have that conversation if you want to, but you gotta be nice, even though this is the pit.
Will you concede the constitutionality of limiting contributions to political campaigns?
That kind of dishonesty is called intellectual dishonesty, adaher.
Yes, in certain cases where that has been established as constitutional. Such as direct contributions to candidates. Independent spending is not subject to contribution limits because there is no quid pro quo. Obviously, if one can be demonstrated, the Supreme Court could change it’s reasoning. But as long as it’s in the realm of theory(kinda like in person voter fraud), then such claims will be treated with the skepticism they deserve.
I support 100% of the campaign finance laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court: the soft money ban, limits on direct contributions to candidates, that sort of things. I do not support limiting money in politics for its own sake.
What if both houses switch party-control?
I’ll be marginally happier. I’d rather be able to scuttle “living, breathing Constitution” judicial nominees in the Senate. But just barely.