SC voter ID law shot down

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Terr

Then in order to prove electoral fraud I just have to show you that there are dead voters on the rolls.

No, because the harm is done as soon as you impose the burden on the voter regardless of whether or not they would have voted or not. The fraud is not the necessary result of dead voters on the rolls. And if dead voters on the rolls is the problem then why not address dead voters on the rolls rather than try to make everybody prove they are not a dead person?

@Bricker

No.

Hrmm, I think we disagree here. I thin that section 2 places the burden of proof on the federal government to prove a violation while section 5 places the burden of proof on the state to prove that there is no discriminatory effect (regardless of intent, we don’t quibble about the discriminatory intent of states that have a history of denying people the vote based ont eh color of their skin).

In the sense that the law grants the Justice Department the power to nullify changes in voting procedure in former Jim Crow states, yes, of course the Justice Department has more discretion. But while other changes might earn my jaundiced eye this one, fuinctionally identical to the Indiana one approved in Crawford, does not.

I think that under section 5, any of the old Jim Crow states face a higher standard than other states.

But perhaps I’m wrong. Sure seems like someone here, or multiple someones here, would want to take up and win the bet I offered.

I’m not arguing that you are wrong, I am arguing that your cite is distinguishable because South Carolina is subject to different standards. I don’t know WHAT a Roberts Court would do with this set of facts but I am less certain than you seem to be.

This pattern repeats itself almost endlessly on this board. Bold (or dire) predictions accompany the discussion of some proposed change. But no one wnats to actually be accountable, either by wager or subsequent retraction, for their predictions. I remember a debate about Virginia’s same-sex marriage amendment in which several folks claimed that, if passed, the Virginia amendment would legalize domestic abuse among unmarried couples, because of the way it defined marriage. And of course, after the fact, when no such instances of legalized abuse came to light, did the principal proponents appear to shamefacedly acknowledge their foolish predictions? No, they did not.

So it will be here. Everyone is willing to flap their jaws now about nonsense. No one is willing to do anything that might make them accountable for their predictions.

This is meaningless jabber.

And you have seen this sort of thing from me? When have I been wrong and been reluctant to admit I was wrong?

[Terr]

@Damuri_Ajashi

No, because the harm is done as soon as you impose the burden on the voter regardless of whether or not they would have voted or not.

Please detail how the harm is done if the “eligible voter” never intended to vote?

[E-Sabbath]

@Bricker

Not in the same way.

What you call “denying,” is not really denying. The state is giving photo IDs, at no cost, to those people wishing to vote. Because this option is availoable, and becvause the barriers to getting the ID are slight, those people that don’t vote because they don’t have an ID fall more into the category of choosing not to vote, which does not undermine confidence – since in our system we do not make voting mandatory.

I believe I have spotted the good sir’s wedge. “because the barriers to geting the ID are slight.” Can you define this for me, Bricker?

[elucidator]

When I read that paragraph, it brings to mind the children’s clown who specializes in taking a very long balloon, inflating and twisting into a giraffe.

Some People who aren’t going to vote did last time, they are choosing not to vote, but claim that they are held back by this itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny little bit of inconvenience. One has to wonder if they are even worthy of voting, being so lackadaisical about it all.

Of course, the last time they voted, they had no such problem, the law had to be changed to make such a problem for them. And now they do. And the ostensible rationale is so transparently false, it is like a flimsy negligee on the body of a clapped-out, aging Shanghai waterfront whore. It is weapons grade hypocrisy.

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

I believe I have spotted the good sir’s wedge. “because the barriers to geting the ID are slight.” Can you define this for me, Bricker?

Yes.

“Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State’s election laws therefore cannot be resolved by any ‘litmus-paper test’ that will separate valid from invalid restrictions. . . . Instead, a court must resolve such a challenge by an analytical process that parallels its work in ordinary litigation. It must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.”

Of course, the words aren’t mine. But in this instance, Justice Stevens did a fine job for me.

[elucidator]

The people who’s voting rights are to be restricted have done nothing to deserve it, they are not felons, they are not certifiable, and those classes are already restricted. The restriction to be imposed is an arbitrary, capricious, and self-serving solution to a problem that, for all practical purposes, does not exist. They might as well be addressing the problem of unicorn meat sold on the black market.

Would it be the first time that an unjust law was found to be legally valid and Constitutionally kosher? No, of course not. So why do you keep trying to make the whole argument depend thereupon? Are you more comfortable arguing the legality of a thing rather than the justice?

[China_Guy]

Instead of manufacturing problems to bandaid on a fix with (un)intended consequences of benefiting one party at the expense of another party, I don’t really see anyone up in arms about fixing the root problems.

You really want to fix the problem, then institute a national ID (which frankly already exists via the SS#) and standardized federal voting laws. This bullshit of letting North Dakotans vote without registering yet wanting to institute specialized “only used for voting” picture ID in the modern age is contradictory at best.

Even if you can’t do a sweeping national fix, one could:
-cull dead voters to avoid zombie voting
-download your absentee ballot from the internet instead of waiting for it to be sent to you
-etc

And if you want to go down the redundant path of a special voter ID on a State by State basis, I’d be the first to appaud your altruistic intentions if the rules were announced now and enforced on 1 Jan 2016.

[Fear_Itself]

@elucidator

The people who’s voting rights are to be restricted have done nothing to deserve it…

You mean, besides being malingering ne’er-do-wells that can’t be troubled to get their grade-A government-supported behinds down to the DMV to get an ID card, right?

[Terr]

When a question is asked why ID is required when buying beer or cigarettes, but not when you vote, you always get the response that beer and cigarette buying is not a right, whereas voting is.

Well, let’s test that on a right that every US citizen has to enter United States from abroad. You would agree that’s a “right”, correct? How come an ID (passport if by air, other documents such as birth certificate or drivers license if by land) is required? What if the person entering has misplaced the passport and it was inconvenient for him to get another one, and he has no other documentation. Should he be allowed in without the documentation?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Are you more comfortable arguing the legality of a thing rather than the justice?

Yes. A hundred times yes.

The legality of a thing can be proven.

The justice fo a thing requires that you and I agree on the basic tenets of justice and how they are to be weighed if in conflict. We don’t. As a result, every argument about justice with you is almost certainly doomed futile from the start.

So if yoiu want to argue for the injustice, go right ahead. It’s excellent exercise. But not with me, because I know I’ll get nowhere.

The determination of legality, on the other hand, controls whether the thing actually happens. If it’s legal, it can happen. If I have to chose, in society, between winning the legality battle and winning anything else, I’ll take the legality win.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

The legality of a thing can be proven.

Only if 12 good citizens agree. Sort of like your definition of justice.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Terr

No.
These are all state matters.
The Constitution. 10th amendment.

Social security is not a state matter.

The 10th amendment doesn’t preclude a national ID if the federal government has them issued as proof of legal residence (immigration naturalization are within the enumerated powers) or right to work in the USA (commerce clause).

@Terr

Please detail how the harm is done if the “eligible voter” never intended to vote?

In the same way that harm is done if I a law is passed saying that you cannot criticize the government, even if you had no intention of ever criticizing the government.

@elucidator

…Would it be the first time that an unjust law was found to be legally valid and Constitutionally kosher? No, of course not. So why do you keep trying to make the whole argument depend thereupon? Are you more comfortable arguing the legality of a thing rather than the justice?

I don’t really have a problem with the law itself so much as the timing and motive behind the law. There is part of the constitution that forbids congressmen from voting themselves pay raises without an intervening election. I think most changes to election laws could benefit from this mechanism. I would focus on making the ID acquiring process faster simpler and easier. I would be upset if North Carolina proceeded to make budget cuts to their DMV.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

Yes. A hundred times yes.

The legality of a thing can be proven.

The justice fo a thing requires that you and I agree on the basic tenets of justice and how they are to be weighed if in conflict. We don’t. As a result, every argument about justice with you is almost certainly doomed futile from the start.

So if yoiu want to argue for the injustice, go right ahead. It’s excellent exercise. But not with me, because I know I’ll get nowhere.

The determination of legality, on the other hand, controls whether the thing actually happens. If it’s legal, it can happen. If I have to chose, in society, between winning the legality battle and winning anything else, I’ll take the legality win.

If the Supreme Court ruled the day sky legally orange, what color would it be in your world? If you say orange, you’re insane. Saying the sky is orange doesn’t make it orange. If it ruled war is peace, war remains war and peace something that isn’t war.

In your case it results in someone to scared to even admit an 80 mile round trip for someone without transportation is more than a slight burden. Tell me Bricker, for all your fancy claims to book learning, why do you feel the answer to my previous question would be so unproductive? You try to handwave it away as “nebulous”, but it’s a simple fact. It’s a burden. The Supreme Court is wrong.

Surely we can all agree an 80 mile round trip is more than a slight burden for some folks. Yet because the Supreme Court said otherwise you feel the sky is orange in this case too.

Democracy is what controls what happens, not the law. The law is subservient to the will of the people. Except Republicans don’t want the poor voting, so they attack Democracy its self.

You try to hide under the skirts of the law like a toddler afraid of the big world, but the law, if it’s just, should reflect the will of the people balanced against human and civil rights. Ths poor have a right to vote.
The law should be just or it is an illegitimate tyranny.

[BrainGlutton]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

You try to hide under the skirts of the law like a toddler afraid of the big world, but the law, if it’s just, should reflect the will of the people . . .

I think that’s the real sticking-point here.

[elucidator]

Remember, Law is the hand-job of Justice.

[China_Guy]

Does anyone else see the irony in the Virginia Republican primary? according to Bloomberg:

Perry, the governor of Texas, filed an emergency motion today seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent distribution of the ballots without his name. In a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in Richmond, Perry claimed that the state’s requirement that petition circulators need to be eligible or registered qualified voters in Virginia violates his constitutional rights.

“Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election,” Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Perry, said in a statement. “We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot.”

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Yes. A hundred times yes.

The legality of a thing can be proven.

The justice fo a thing requires that you and I agree on the basic tenets of justice and how they are to be weighed if in conflict. We don’t. As a result, every argument about justice with you is almost certainly doomed futile from the start.

So if yoiu want to argue for the injustice, go right ahead. It’s excellent exercise. But not with me, because I know I’ll get nowhere.

The determination of legality, on the other hand, controls whether the thing actually happens. If it’s legal, it can happen. If I have to chose, in society, between winning the legality battle and winning anything else, I’ll take the legality win.

Brother, you done messed up, becoming a lawyer. You want solid rationality, you got to go science. I would have myself, but my math bites it.

Our whole thing is based on the irrational! What, it makes sense to have kids, and love them? Snotty nosed, scabby kneed little crumb snatchers, following you around and begging for food and money? That makes sense? That’s a rational decision? C’mon!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident”. The most wonderful, magnificent cop-out in human history. All it says is “No, we can’t prove any of this, we’ve decided to believe it anyway, fuck you if you can’t take a joke!” Its a leap of faith, a gift we give one another, that we believe such utter nonsense. And I do, friend Bricker, I do indeed! And I refuse to believe otherwise. all evidence to the contrary not withstanding. Can I prove it? Hell, no.

The Constitution wasn’t created by gods, it was made by a bunch of bourgeois assholes, the whole “checks and balances”…and a wonderful thing it is, too, don’t get me wrong…came about because none of them trusted each other any further than Jimmy Madison could throw that little bitch Hamilton! And the Supreme Court invented itself!

“We decide what is Constitutional!”

“You do? Says who?”

“The Constitution! We say so!”

The wholly rational mind is a tool, brother. You pick it up, you use it, you set it down. A marvelous tool it is, no denying. But the wholly rational mind never thinks outside the box, it loves the box, it only wants the box to be smaller and more rigid.

Probably too late in life for you to take a bunch of drugs, huh? Well, too bad. I’ll help you out as best I can, seeing as you’ve not had my advantages…

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

The law is subservient to the will of the people.

Putting aside the fact that voter ID laws are crafted by the people’s representatives, and thus start with the strong presumption that they do reflect the will of the people, the issue of requiring voter IDs enjoys high support among the people.

An overwhelming number of voters support laws that require showing a photo ID before voting. A new Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters found that 70 percent approved of such laws while just 22 percent opposed them.

Let me guess… in this case, the people are too stupid to be trusted with the important task of deciding this question, right?

@BrainGlutton

I think that’s the real sticking-point here.

Apparently right.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

If the Supreme Court ruled the day sky legally orange, what color would it be in your world? If you say orange, you’re insane. Saying the sky is orange doesn’t make it orange. If it ruled war is peace, war remains war and peace something that isn’t war.

Hah! Hah! In my world, the measurable, reliable, repeatable fact is: voter ID laws are constitutional.

In your case it results in someone to scared to even admit an 80 mile round trip for someone without transportation is more than a slight burden. Tell me Bricker, for all your fancy claims to book learning, why do you feel the answer to my previous question would be so unproductive? You try to handwave it away as “nebulous”, but it’s a simple fact. It’s a burden. The Supreme Court is wrong.

No, it’s not, and you can’t make it into one by declaring it to be so. It’s the kind of thing that we, as a society, are quite comfortable in saying is the kind of necessary, slight sacrifice that someone who wants to vote will have to make.

You don’t agree. I get that.

But that doesn’t make it anything more than your opinion, which, when weighed against the opinion of those people who can actually decide these things, ends up to be wholly lacking in persuasive force.

This is not a matter of some wide-spread definition, like the color of the sky. When a burden becomes ‘undue’ or ‘excessive’ is a matter of judgement, and the judges have spoken. Rail away agianst them, if you like. It doesn’t change a blessed thing.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Let me guess… in this case, the people are too stupid to be trusted with the important task of deciding this question, right?.

People’s opinions can be shaped by the campaign of lies and misinformation that the right has been pushing for decades.

There is no significant voting fraud. But people think it’s rampant because of liars on the right.

Perception isn’t reality.