No, but it demonstrates that even three of the august members of the Supreme Court held those ideas. I’m surprised that you characterize them as “zany”
No. Souter and Ginsburg weren’t relying on the disparate burden – their dissent was focused on their idea that Indiana failed to show enough justification to burden the right to vote for anyone. In other words, they did not invoke the “equality before the law,” that elucidator did.
Breyer did very indirectly invoke that concept, but even he acknowledged:
So even Breyer’s objection comes in major portion from the lack of an adjustment or phase-in period… an aspect that was perhaps true in 2008, but now, in 2014, is obviously moot.
So: yes, zany, for anyone writing in 2014.
Ah! So those words, “neutral” and “nondiscriminatory”, they don’t actually mean anything here? So, then, if the “qualification of the voter” is the central point, then “neutral” and “nondiscriminatory” don’t count any more?
You see, I was kinda thinking that it was saying that such voter qualification was all good so long as it remained “neutral” and “nondiscriminatory”. And that if such voter qualification *wasn’t *“neutral” and “nondiscriminatory”, then it wasn’t OK.
Your answer confuses me, and not simply because you are so much smarter than I, but that somehow you claim to have answered a question about the meaning of those two words in this context without ever referring to them. Someone who is not familiar with your reputation as a paragon of strict candor and honest debate might think you had evaded the question. That you answered a question I didn’t ask, and ignored the one that I did ask.
You have already…what’s that word?..ah!..stipulated that many, if not most, of the Republican legislators here had acted with malign intent, to weaken their opposition. So how could that be done and still be “neutral” and “nondiscriminatory”? Or, alternatively, what are those words doing there if they don’t mean anything?
Seems to me that if they made laws that weren’t neutral and were discriminatory, then that ruling doesn’t help them any. You being so smart and all, perhaps you can explain that it a way that a poor old addled hippy can grasp.
Or perhaps you can’t. Which is why you didn’t.
Really? You must have missed this part:
It certainly seems to me that he is arguing about unfair burdens being placed on some voters, rather than on all.
The phrase “neutral and nondiscriminatory” refers to the language of the law. It applies to everyone equally.
What you’re asking about is often called “disparate impact,” and occurs if a law with neutral language on its face nonetheless has a different impact on different people.
Not all disparate impact is impermissible, since every law will affect some people more than others.
In the case of Voter ID, the impact is not zero, but it is negligible.
OK, fair enough. My bigger point stands: Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg said what they said in 2006. They would not, in 2014, say that Crawford was not the controlling standard. They would not, in 2014, say that their dissents were the correct statement of the law, and to do so is both zany and whacky.
And of course if you don’t consider it a burden, no one else could regardless of circumstances of the person being burdened.
But I certainly agree with you, they are schemes.
Perhaps someone could.
So whose opinion do we ultimately use to decide on the validity of the law?
Well, yes, of course. “The language of the law”, to be sure. Because the law is language, yes? But its not just language, it is language empowered. Hence, if the law is to be non-discriminatory, the language must reflect that. So, this is a statement of the bleeding obvious masquerading as information.
What a coy turn of phrase that is, “not all…impermissible”! The standard understanding of such phrasing is that of exception, that in the usual course of things whatever is “not always impermissible” is usually impermissible. Yes?
So we may fairly assume that “disparate impact” is most likely impermissible, because you emphasize the exception. In your haste to offer me a patronizing explanation, that slipped past unremarked. Which renders the whole notion of “nondiscriminatory” and “neutral” suspect.
How would such an amazing result come about, if, as you say, many if not most of the authors of this travesty had malign intentions, to harass and discourage blameless voters? Voters who are targeted for no good reason other than the likelihood they would vote against the wishes of authors of this law.
With such intentions, how could the language of the bill, and therefore the bill itself, acheive such a miraculous and immaculate state of “neutral and nondiscriminatory”? Did they fuck it up? A miracle, perhaps? They set out to craft something biased and discriminatory, but somehow didn’t? It surpasseth understanding, it is a mystery…
Are we back in your preferred territory, the airless and pristine heights where you argue strictly about the validity of voter id as the thing itself, without reference to actual effects?
Negligible? To whom? Imagine you are the target of this legislative travesty, being of objectionable complexion and of unsound political thought. You behold the spectacle of your state legislature setting out to hinder and harass your voting ability. And your reaction would be to simply shrug it off, heck, what does it really matter?
Even if he has all his documentation is neat rows of solid respectability, he knows that the Republican Party would probably impede his voting rights if they could figure out a way how. One more insult on top of decades of such insults, one more reminder that he cannot trust the Republican Party to respect his voting rights as much as his fellow citizens.
A “negligible impact”, you say? Have you asked any of them? Have you asked any of them how this affects their “voter confidence”?
Were any efforts made to lessen that impact? We are advised upthread by a universally respected and admired expert in the law that there were all kinds of methods available to that end: postponement, for instance. In how many instances were such remedies applied? Outreach programs, expanded voter registration drives coupled with means to supply voter id to the qualified with ease and convenience?
If you could show us that this was the standard in all such instances, why, you could entirely destroy your opposition’s argument! Yet, you have not. Because they don’t exist. What does exist is various and sundry odious embellishments to hinder and deny voting access for the politically unreliable demographic. Closing off “Sunday voting” and other early voting opportunities, just to name a couple of the most repugnant examples.
And yet you offer us to believe that the authors of this ensemble of foul politics somehow, by some miracle, crafted a nondiscriminatory and neutral piece of law? With malice aforethought, they produced a positive boon?
I am reminded to thank the Goddess that even though I am not as smart as I think I am, at least I am not so stupid as you think I am! Assuming, of course, that you ever actually thought I would buy this avalanche of horseshit…
"On June 13, 1866, when the 39th Congress, controlled by Republicans, passed the 14th Amendment giving African Americans rights to due process and “equal protection” under law, it did so with not a single Democratic Representative’s vote. When the Senate voted to pass the 14th Amendment not a single Democrat supported it.
Your point being … ?
Any phrenologist can tell you that’s only because Democrats had the wrong arrangement of head bumps.
one lump or two?
Please don’t sully the genius that is Bugs Bunny by stealing his jokes.
No. There is nothing in that sentence that entitles you to tack on “usually.”
No. You fabricated the “usually,” and then used it to fabricate “most likely.” In fact, the vast majority of laws that create disparate impact between two classes of people are permissible.
Oh,so its more or less like collateral damage, then, an unavoidable part of the act of legislation? And is not a result of the malign intent of the legislators?
OK, why then the phrasing “not all disparate impact is impermissible”, if not to imply some exception to a general rule? According to you, that is widely acknowledged as the rule rather than the exception. If all ten of the lawyers here on the Boards were here, would we have a chorus of brown wing-tips and Men’s Wearhouse suits singing in happy accord with your view on that?
And doesn’t it make a difference if the “disparate impact” is deliberate? Pretty much has to be deliberate, doesn’t it, unless you want to define malign intent as somehow accidental.
And what about the rest of the post? What about the target of all this, what about how he perceives his citizenship when faced with such an insult from his state legislators? is that “negligible” by your lights?
The phrase does not imply anything. It outright STATES that not all disparate impact is impermissible. It’s not clear to me why you believed you could pencil in a “likely” clause.
Virtually every single law has a disparate impact. A law requiring parking meter fees impacts those who drive cars. A law criminalizing burglary impacts those who wish to burglarize.
A law’s disparate impact might become problematic when it creates classification a that are protected categories. This is a rare case, because the vast majority of laws don’t do this.
No.
[quote]
And what about the rest of the post? What about the target of all this, what about how he perceives his citizenship when faced with such an insult from his state legislators? is that “negligible” by your lights?[/QUOTE
Yes.
You know, if you made a case for your position rather than arguing against the cases of those opposing you, I think people would be less hostile.
As near as I can tell, you favor “tiny” hurdles to voting that would increase the value that certain other voters have for their vote.
People see society in a couple different ways. Some see it as a way to pool resources so the “best” can optimally gather resources. Others see society as a way to ensure the basics for as many as possible while still allowing for competition.
A subset of the opportunists are honest and own their position. Another subset supports actions that favor opportunists while pretending that the actions benefit “everyone”.
The wonderful thing about forums like this is given enough time, it’s clear where people line up.
False dilemma. Neither statement describes how I see society.
“Gather resources?” Really?
People create wealth, as opposed to gathering resources. The term “gathering resources” suggests that there is only a finite amount of stuff, and society should be concerned with how it gets distributed – and of course those who try to get more than their “fair share,” are somehow cheating.
That’s nonsense. There’s more stuff now than there was last year. That’s because last year there was dirt and seeds, and this year those seeds are wheat and strawberries.
And last year’s wheat and strawberries became flour and strawberry pies, unless Disney bought the strawberries, in which case they became Cinderella’s Strawberry Soup and were worth considerably more than than the strawberries that went into the pies that were baked by Mrs. Freshley.
Did Disney gather more resources than Mrs. Freshley?
No. But they were better at turning their resources into wealth.
I see the proper role of society as creating the minimal framework necessary to ensure individual freedom. Period.
All this would be mooted if the obvious solution was put in place - don’t let elected officials determine rules for elections.