Is it about 1% of Republicans who have malign motives? Or is it closer to 99%? Rational humans might find this quantitative assessment relevant, but our Esquire considers the distinction meaningless.
“Plurality” — there’s a nice lawyerly term; it means “two or more.” Has the Esquire admitted that a plurality of Republicans have malign motives?
Gun license = issued by state government
School ID = issued by individual school
I’m comfortable in saying that there’s a higher degree of reliability associated with correct identification for a gun license than for a student ID. Do you believe the reverse is true?
Agreed.
But that test - the rational basis test – is where I contend your proposed law would fail.
No. I’d never argue that the law you mentioned should be judicially invalidated merely because the courts can conceive a better method, because that’s not how the rational basis test works.
I was for one, responding to your idea that the types of ID that are approved of by the GOP are the types that more mainstream society carries, which does reflect a general disdain for people in school.
Then, there’s the fact that the ID that I use for voting, my 11 month old verizon bill, was made by neither.
Finally, when I went to school, I had to show them my ID and my social security card in order to enroll, and then when I got my student ID, I had to again show them my driver’s license.
I see no higher degree in reliability in an ID just because it was issued by a department that is under the state government.
You don’t?
Is there something about your Verizon bill that I couldn’t duplicate with a home scanner and a color printer?
Now, as to the student ID – I’m not so interested in what you showed them as in what their list of acceptable IDs was. If you didn’t have a driver’s license, could you have showed them your Verizon bill that you printed on your home color printer?
By the way – you link to an article saying that the Texas law was struck down. But of course that article was written in 2015. Just this April, the Fifth Circuit upheld their revised law, which kept the list of acceptable IDs and cured the concerns about voters not having ID by allowing them to vote if they sign an affidavit attesting to who they are, and why they can’t get a real ID.
This law was also opposed, on the grounds that the criminal penalties for those who make false statements in their sworn affidavits would discourage voters.
That line of attack was not successful.
So Texas has a Voter ID law! Court approved! Ain’t it grand?
Now, the way you spun it, it about half implies and insinuates an effort to encourage illegal voting, which must be firmly addressed. The explanation offered above, which seems to have escaped your attention, suggests that minority persons are often wary and fearful of interactions with the law, and might be discouraged from exercising their rights.
In Texas? Ya think maybe?
Gloat while you can, hoss. Tick tock, tick tock.
That’s an unreasonable concern, and society is under no obligation to bow to it. The whole POINT of an affidavit is to create a criminal penalty for lying. The existence of the penalty is part of the value of the process.
Odd, that wasn’t the one I meant to link to, just a general one about the texas law, but I take it you get the point.
This makes some sense, as those who are most marginalized are also those who are the least trustful of government institutions. I can see how someone would be concerned about signing their name to an affidavit that if they made any errors at all, the law can come crushing down on them.
Not all that surprising, there is very little support for those who are most marginalized in our society.
So does Ohio, where I intentionally use my 11 month old cell phone bill, because I can.
Oh, really? In the paragon of justice that is Texas? Was it always an unreasonable concern, or is this an historical development? So, OK, when, exactly?
Do they know that, these people with their “unreasonable concerns”? Somebody should tell them. Make their day. Wouldn’t that be grand?
That’s a foolish choice for the voters of Ohio to make, in my opinion, but my stronger opinion is: it’s theirs to make. I fully support Ohio’s scheme.
Since 1982, with the passage of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
Do you believe in miracles as a general sort of thing, or just legislative ones? Generations of fear, poof! Gone!
An “unreasonable” concern in Bricker’s view is one that doesn’t affect him. He prefers to focus on “reasonable” concerns, like “voter confidence”.
He believes what he’s told to believe.
Human beings would instead define “intent to defraud” based on whether there was intent to … wait for it … defraud.
Of course none of us agrees with this bullshit. There’s a separate thread where you may whine about plea bargaining if you wish. This thread is about Justice.
Uh oh. We know Counselor packs heat, and of course he keeps a round in the chamber. Do we know whether one of his guns is the dangerous Glock? Better clear the arena when he’s doing backflips.
(Disclaimer: I also always kept my gun cocked in younger days. Now I often bolster myself with 20 mg of blue powder there’s risk I’ll need to use my weapon.)
So Mr. Bumble (see quote upthread) was right? Is that your point?
Babble, babble, babble. A good law clerk could dig out cites that go either way. The right-wing ogres on SCOTUS find whatever precedent serves their immoral agenda. One can pity Clothahump and the other idjits who don’t know that. What’s your excuse?
It seems clear that you won’t allow me to decide what society should accept as reasonable, and I’m certainly not willing to allow you to define it.
So we should set up a tribunal, and let that tribunal decide how to interpret “reasonable,” as applied to a given set of facts. And their decision will be accepted by us both.
Hey! We did that already!
How lucky – what a time-saver, eh?
Now I accept their decision.
But I bet you don’t.
Still having trouble with the distinction between justice and the law, aren’t we, Counselor?
The rational basis is to prevent voter fraud by requiring ID. Same as any of the other laws discussed in this thread.
Kansas proof of citizenship voter law struck down by federal judge. Trump’s voter fraud czar (also Kansas Secretary of State) personally defended this law in court. The judge was less than impressed with how Kobach handled himself in court and assigned him six hours of continuing legal education that, “pertain to federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”