Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
Right. But as I said - the Supremes have ruled that Voter Id's are not, in themselves, unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that voter id's are not unconstitutional even if the imposing party has prejudicial intent. And since this was a 6-3 decision - this one is not one likely to go away.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Voter ID's are not unconstitutional. Therefore voter ID's are not a poll tax, and once again - you are *wrong*.
Wrong when you said "No, no states. No government entity expenditure at all. It is unconstitutional, it is a poll tax. "
Wrong when you said "Not for voting, that would be taxpayer money. No poll taxes. Not constitutional. "
Wrong when you said - "Cite it, because no such thing has occurred", in response to me saying "Fortunately, the supreme court has already said, definitively that you are wrong. So why do you continue to spew falsehood?"
And don't even try to pretend the subject is anything other than Voter Id's.
Once again your response is predictable. You will obfuscate, vilify, and fail to provide any quote to support your position.
The great news, from my point of view, is that every time you do that you discredit the liberal democrat position. Not much can be done for people that will vote left all the time anyway - but for everyone else you serve to show people why the left is such a disaster. You can't win a debate of ideas - so I enjoy every accusation, every invective you hurl.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
a court must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the "hard judgment" that our adversary system demands.
The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483.16 The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver's license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana's BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.
Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.
The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.
So, no ruling on poll tax and actually a carefully constructed opinion that says that since there is no cost to the guys who got the id, (which is obviously wrong and will be argued in depth at some point) that there is a very wide door open here---for argument --- And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters----(and he goes on to fundamentally say that the petitioner's have no standing in this case for that reason...it ain't gonna be included in this opinion)
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/26/2013 1:50:03 PM >
|
RE: IRS Scandal Reaches Whitehouse - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread