Loosely speaking, though, I’d say it was likely that if legislators had “secret” motives, different from their publicly professed ones, it could well have an effect on that legislation. A bill not being able to serve two masters type of affair. In a situation where Legislator A enacts a law that fails to support their professed intent while actually supporting their “secret” intent, for later legislative purposes when looking back on debate or the preamble a disconnect could be observed which would be taken into account when judging that law. If legislator Me declares a public Anti-Balloon ordnance, publicly to prevent choking hazards for children but privately because I want my political opponent’s rubber factory to fail, and it’s later discovered that in fact the type of rubber that my ordnance outlaws isn’t even used for balloons, that would, seemingly be good reason for overturning that law. That would be an occasion where my “secret” intent matters, because it’s that intent that’s led to the law failing when judged against my public intent.
Except that Voter ID laws are overwhelmingly popular, which means that the danger of any substantial portion of the population feeling like a result is illegitimate is small. And it means that the tiny fraction of people that do feel it’s a danger are even more motivated to… go get IDs!
It’s a win, win, win.
I can’t think of any court case decided on the grounds you imagine.
Can you?
Jim Crow laws were popular in the South when they were in existence. And yet we still, rightly, recognize that pretty much all elections in the Jim Crow South were not legitimate. Jim Crow laws damaged the South for generations, despite its popularity at the time.
So, not a win-win.
What descriptor would you use and if it’s anything other than “no liberals in this thread”, can you name them and cite relevant posts?
Intent matters when a court is deciding whether or not to overturn a law.
(I first learned of this in the Louisiana creationism case, where much was made of one legislator who had carelessly stated that his intent was to bring religious education to schoolkids. This exposure of the intent of the legislature was part of the reasoning in the overturn of the law.)
No, I can’t - as I’ve said, not a legal mind.
Is the situation I’ve described a possible one?
Not really, no.
And in spite of Trinopus’ analogy, the fact is that the Supreme Court considered this precise challenge and rejected it:
Emphasis added.
Why?
I mean, per your cite, it seems like the hinging point in that case was that there were valid, strong, neutral justifications in addition to the bogus biased justification. In my imagined situation, the neutral justification is invalid, and your cite suggests (if I am reading it correctly) that if invalid justifications had been the only justifications in that case, the Supreme Court would have found differently.
Well, sure, but just because this one guy had such intentions, that is no reason to disregard the valid neutral justification of God’s law being taught in our schools! Besides, Jesus is very popular in America, and anybody who feels slighted by not having any Jesus is probably too feckless and lazy to go get some.
People must express their commitment in positive terms. Used to be, people displayed that commitment by owning property, but these are more enlightened times and we demonstrate our commitment by how much of a pain in the butt we are willing to endure. The comfortable guy drives to the local high school, then home. The inner city guy stands in line for four or five hours, and they both cast their one vote. That’s your “equal justice before the law”, right there! One vote each, after demonstrating their commitment, can’t get any more equal than that! Or maybe “won’t” is the right word, because they ain’t about to let that happen…
Besides, liberals don’t want to rule by fiat, they prefer Volvos…
Ain’t neutral. We have evidence that it ain’t neutral, that the burden falls selectively on the population most likely to vote Democrat, hence, the law favors Republicans.
Not “neutral”. Unless two out of three is close enough?
That’s just meaningless complaining.
As you claim you’re now saying, this isn’t anything except a rant at your perception of the poor choices made by the legislature, courts, governor, and zillions of people who support the law. We all think it’s neutral. You don’t.
Net effect: law continues in force.
Because preventing choking hazards for children is a valid goal.
Yes. But in your hypo, you created what appears to be a valid, neutral justification: preventing choking hazards for children.
Although on re-reading it you call it an “anti-balloon ordinance,” but then say it outlaws a type of rubber not used for balloons. If that’s the case, the law fails the rational basis test, because it’s not rationally related to a government goal. No need to explore the mindset of legislators.
I remain curious who all of these would-be democracy-destroyers are.
Thank you for re-reading.
How do we know which government goal the ordinance (I spell bad) is meant to meet without examining the intent of legislators? And when you say that there is no need to explore the mindset of legislators, does that mean there will not be such an exploration?
The statute typically sets out its purpose in the text. Even if it doesn’t, the State may defend its laws against challenge by articulating a permissible purpose, one that is rationally related to the function of the legislation.
The intent of the legislators is not relevant – what’s relevant is what the law actually does.
Yes.
Yanno, I agree with this.
Of course, when it comes to voter ID laws, what the law actually does is disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, which in turn means it disproportionately disenfranchises brown people.
IMHO.
.
Oh, well, have the dictionary people been informed about this new meaning for the word, “neutral”? I freely admit, I had not, in fact, its totally news to me even now!
So, it used to mean like “unaligned”, not favoring one side or the other, but now that’s different, huh? Now, in its expanded meaning, “favoring one political party” is now “neutral”?
So, even if reliable evidence were offered that the law did, in fact, favor one party over another, that wouldn’t matter because “neutral” now means what you say it means? And you’re sure about this? Flocks of legal eagles nodding behind you in solemn agreement?
No it doesn’t. The Georgia study proves as much.
Even if it did, I don’t care, because people that choose not to vote for such a trivial reason are not a concern. But it doesn’t.