Dunno, Doggy. If someone of moderate views like myself upsets him so much, you might just set his hair on fire. A note of caution.
I’d reject the notion of limiting it by means tests. The Constitution says “No Poll Taxes”, not “No Poll Taxes Unless You Can Afford To Pay Them”.
Tread softly, SteveMegaByter, you are close to “originalist” territory.
As you are aware, the Founding Fuckups were perfectly comfortable with “means testing” as a benchmark to judge probity (money), intelligence (property) and civic virtue (money and property). What better men to empower with the grave decisions of state than those who’s character can be easily quantified?
Over time, this excellent rationale was undermined by the Paineist radicals (Take that, Al Hamilton, you little bitch!..), turning away from the orthodox worship of the Dollar Almighty. According to some, its been downhill ever since, as the riff-raff get their grubby mitts on ballots.
It is, nonetheless, settled law stark staring decisis. What strikes me as odd to the point of suspicion is that this was entirely obvious to the lower, careerist ranks of DoJ lawyers, who rejected the GA statute out of hand. The political appointees at the top, including (presumably) the estimable Gen. Gonzales, saw it otherwise and pronounced it mmm-mmm-good! Darkly suspicious radical that I am, I suspect political motivation and ideological contamination, resulting in a blatant attempt to undermine the voter support of the Dems. I find that it stinks on ice, rotten, putrid, and corrupt. Friend Bricker finds it mildly disagreeable. Not quite the done thing, don’t you know.
I’m surprised to hear that all you typically need is a driver’s license. I have a Georgia driver’s license, valid for five years. I’m also not eligible for voting, since I am not a citizen. I’m not even a permanent resident at this point! So how would they stop me from voting if I decided I was gonna try?
In most states you have to register to vote. You can usually do that when you get your drivers license. When you get to the polling place, they check to see if your name is on the list of registered voters. Every time I’ve ever voted (and I haven’t missed an election since I turned 18 in 1984) all they’ve done is ask my name, find my name on the list, and then hand me a ballot. I’ve never been asked for ID.
Because you have to be registered to vote. Using a driver’s license is fine for voting if you are already registered. Getting registered would very likely catch your status, however.
Actually, the Constitution’s text is silent on the issue of poll taxes. And I don’t agree the Supreme Court’s interpretation is as definitive as you suggest.
Perhaps you could forward that text to Mr. Gonzales? It seems to have escaped his attention.
How embarrassing.
Right you are.
I fear that my friend Bricker is missing the point, some might argue deliberately so. The career staff at D of J recommended that the Georgia ID plan should be rejected because of a failure to demonstrate that the scheme would have no negative effect on minority voting. The appointed chiefs of the D of J rejected the professional staff recommendation and approved the Georgia scheme, necessarily concluding that the Georgia officials had demonstrated that it had no negative effect, in my phrasing that the Georgia scheme was dandy and benign. Given the factual assertions made here, none of which have been contradicted, it is hard to think that the D of J decision was not more based on considerations of party politics than on an honest consideration of the statute and its likely application and effect and on the plain language of the Voting Rights Act.
Somehow the idea that a political party that purports to be wedded to democracy abroad should embrace measures that make it harder for our fellow citizens to exercise the franchise at home is a bit disturbing. An aversion to convenient voter registration has been a principal plank in the local party’s platform for a number of years now. The claim has been that it would prevent election fraud but there has been scant evidence of such fraud in this state, and that entirely anecdotal. It is not too hard to speculate on a more sinister and partisan motive. Such speculation is, it seems to me, entirely reasonable.
I’m sorry to have dropped out of this for a day or so. I’ve been down to the capital to see the daughters and sons-in-law and get all foolish over the grandbaby. The early Thanksgiving was a lot more fun that dealing with the hardcases that hang out around here.
It didn’t escape Gonzales’ attention. He just thinks it’s …
well, you know.
Gay?
Yep, that’s what I was referencing.
After reading it forwards, backwards, upside down, and under ultraviolet light, I still can’t seem to find the part that says that poll taxes are OK if they’re means-tested. Admittedly, my Penumbral Emanation Spectacles are in the shop being polished…
Right you are. I withdraw the means-test idea. Voter ID cards should be provided free.
And the basis for Mr. Gonzales’ rather puzzling opinion? The motivation for overuling the determination of DoJ lawyers? I think it stinks to high Heaven of partisan manipulation, would you suggest otherwise?