Sure, sure. All those cases, none of which have materialized during the first year and a half, are now going to pop up like dandelions in the next six months, eh? (Since we’re already past the one-year mark that was first discussed, I assume you’re hanging your hat on TWO years?) Or maybe there’s no real limit; ten years from now, you’ll be gamely hanging on to your prediction?
Yeah, it’s a hijack. Sorry. Pit me, and we can discuss your predictive powers in great detail.
No. You can assume that, having forfeited your bet by failure to read the calendar, you have no business ever raising the subject again.
Explain that to me in a bit more detail. You make a prediction, it’s wrong, but it doesn’t count because I brought up the subject before the year had passed, and so now I’m forever barred from mentioning it again? That was my one shot to point out your error, and now it’s passed?
I live in Indiana, and I was unaware of Mitch Daniels doing that. Will you cite that? Particularly with regards to his “excuse” for closing that BMV branch in Gary?
Indiana seems largely Democrat to me, with interesting pockets of Republicans, in places like Batesville.
Either, or both. The balancing test is relevant both to the Constitutionality and the wisdom.
That would be the 14th Amendment. You should read the opinion if you get a chance. It lays out the relevant issues pretty well.
While both are burdens, one is of a significantly greater magnitude. The cost for some people is pretty high. These people have to obtain birth certificates from that state of their birth. States vary in prices, but I checked a couple random states and found as high as $65. That’s a lot of money just to vote. And there’s the time and travel issues. There are thousands of voting booths in a state election, but generally only a few BMVs. It is much more difficult to travel to the BMV and get a license (especially when you don’t have a car and are old or disabled) than it is to make it to a voting booth.
The point is that whatever these burdens are, we must decide how to weigh them against the unproven potential for voting fraud.
Actually, the state of Indiana already has made that decision, as have other states. And since Indiana’s rule is widely regarded as being one of the most restrictive in the country, and it passes constitutional muster, it would seem that there probably aren’t too many constitutionally infirm schemes out there.
But this is not something the state of Indiana gets to judge. Either the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment or it is not.
And while SCOTUS has judged that this particular law, on its face, is valid, that doesn’t remotely settle the issue. This issue will definitely be subject to as-applied challenge. And then we’re back to square one: what is the standard for weighing? Do you think it is OK for the court to judge each case without ever offering a standard?
Here.
I would also note that the mayor of Gary offered to staff and fund the Gary BMV branch before it closed but this offer was rejected.
Happily, a full-service BMV branch has either opened or is about to open again in Gary. This only happened because a lawsuit was filed (still pending) and also because the Democrats took control of the legislature in 2006 and were threatening to pass legislation requiring a full-service branch in Gary.
I am utterly confident that no success lies ahead for an as-applied challenge to this law.
I’m pretty sure of that as well. The opponents would have to win both Stevens and Kennedy, and I think Kennedy is unlikely to switch (in part because he’s a big fan of unproven potential harm (see Gonzales v. Carhartt)).
But, I think all of the evidence that can be gathered about voter fraud has been. The only thing to change is more evidence of the burdens of Indiana’s law. So when they are faced with the evidence of burdens (and there’s bound to be some, however minimal), they will be forced to actually grapple with the weighing. It isn’t clear to me, as a matter of legal principle as opposed to judicial politics, how that weighing would be destined to come out.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
oh wait, you were serious? No, they just explained to me me in excruciating detail that I had already voted that day.
Reading this thread, a related question came to me:
Did anyone have to prove their citizenship to register to vote? Birth certificate, passport, notarized affidavit? Anything? I didn’t.
Hmm. Tell me more. Did they talk to their supervisors? What “excruciating details” did they offer you?
I’ve registered in three states, each time when I got a driver’s license (which required proof of citizenship).
But it has not always been the case that only citizens could vote. Aliens could vote in some US elections until 1920. So it wouldn’t surprise me if not every state checks for citizenship.
But since you were explaining that you had not, what happened next?
A very interesting commentary: The forgotten constitutional amendment about voting rights.
I had to show my birth certificate (to prove citizenship) and a power bill (to prove residency) to get my drivers license. Driver's License or ID Card Online Renewal - California DMV
When applying for the drivers license, the DMV worker asks you if you wish to become a registered voter.
If you wish to register to vote at some other time, or to re-register, you need:
Knowing little about this area (or even law in general), can you confirm that Harman is indeed the “leading SC decision [concerning the 24th]”? From the discussion, it seems that the cost of registration was indeed considered; if that’s the case, how could it be that it was not addressed by the sitting Justices? Was it specifically the use of the word “tax”?
Good questions.
I don’t know anything about it, really. Very few people are knowledgeable in this area. It is not a core part of law school–it is a rarely taken elective. It’s pretty much limited to a handful of government lawyers, a few non-profits, and academics. In most constitutional law classes, they focus on cases and few important amendments. I would guess that most of my colleagues couldn’t say what the 24th amendment was about to save their lives. People argue what they know, and lawyers in general are much more familiar with the 14th amendment than the 24th.
In short, it could have just been oversight on the part of the parties framing the litigation. If no one raised a 24th amendment issue, the court may have decided to not to address it.
If the reason for not addressing it isn’t obvious to Bruce Ackerman, perhaps the most foremost constitutional law scholar in America, it probably isn’t going to be made clear by anyone but the justices themselves. It would be interesting to see if any of the amicus briefs cited it.
But the birth certificate was just to prove identity. What if you were a Mexican national that wanted a DL? In California at least, a drivers licence is not proof of citizenship. So now I as San Cado take my DL to prove identity to register to vote, can’t I as a non-citizen now be on the voter’s roles?
For everyone that asked about my disenfranchisement.
I showed my drivers licence which a) proved I was who I said I was and b) showed that my signature didn’t match the one in the book.
Their reply was that I could drive down to Norwalk (the Regetrar’s Office) and file a complaint and submit a provisional ballot that may be counted depending on the investigation. BTW: there was no way that I could get there before it closed and voting must be done before 8:00pm.
Saint Cad, that actually sounds to me more like error on the part of the poll workers. I would imagine that the proper procedure would be for you to submit a provisional ballot there at the polling place. That, at least, would be procedure here in Ohio.