Reply With Quote
See what I mean?
Because we all know that worked out so well in the past. I mean, no state has ever allowed a majority of people to decide that some other group of people shouldn't be able to vote because of an unjust reason.
Because states have been so careful not to take voting rights away from people for ty reasons, no one has ever had to protest, and no one ever got killed or tortured to fight any of these hypothetical unjust laws.
Thanks for pointing out that we can always completely trust states to never pass laws that take voting rights away for ty reasons. We all needed a refresher.
See what I mean?
and reduce the number of voting locations in black, brown areas.
Repugs also refused to fund replacing old, hackable voting machines.
Repugs also dead set against paper voting trails
Maybe photo ID isn’t the answer
Whatevs.
Guess we're just going to pretend these exchanges didn't happen and post more Youtubes.
meh. Not watching.
That isn't how sampling works. Wow.
I showed this statement to an actuary (advanced degree in statistics). She laughed a lot, and thought I was trying to prank her.
I am embarrassed for you. This is normally where I would carefully, and patiently explain why, but I don't think you give a what is true, so I am going to put as much effort into this as you do.
Darrin's statement was painfully stupid. It hurt to read it.
It is almost as bad as his "thermometer in an office" argument in the global warming thread.
Again, why is a preventive measure so bad? And your stance that it isn't an issue is 50-50, what about states like California where IDs aren't required but are huge for sanctuary cities? Cynicism matches naivety. And it isn't fair to conjure that the ID law prevented voter fraud?
And, on the flip side of the coin, how many people who "couldn't" vote because they didn't have an ID would have voted? There's no legitimate way to prove that number aside from taking their word for it.
Confirmation bias is the single biggest plague of the right and no one on this forum personifies it better.
That and a Teflon resistance to self awareness and reflection.
Bush v Gore was specific to voting for Electors for Presidential elections tbh. but even then, the cons ution says that voting rights can't be discriminated... so this whole argument is moot, since the crux if voter ID is the discriminatory effect
people have always had the right to vote for members of the House (17th amendment gave right to vote for senate)
Last edited by spurraider21; 11-28-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Prove this. The case law is easy to find. Quote the portion of the decision that states what you claim. You once again are long on assertions and short on anything resembling proof. Experience shows that when you do this tactic, you cannot do it but will instead wave your hands and failing that resort to ridicule. It's what you do.
Bush vs Gore was about states having different standards for counting votes and ensuring equal protection. Prima facie there is no reason to believe your claim.
You are making a huge strawman and being an idiot about it. No one is saying that the states and municipalities don't decide on what to vote on. What is being said is that if a government vote is being held then citizens within said jurisdiction have a right to vote in it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../663/case.htmlWe agree, of course, with Mr. Justice Holmes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" (Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 198 U. S. 75). Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause is not shackled to the political theory of a particular era. In determining what lines are uncons utionally discriminatory, we have never been confined to historic notions of equality, any more than we have restricted due process to a fixed catalogue of what was at a given time deemed to be the limits of fundamental rights. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 378 U. S. 5-6. Notions of what cons utes equal treatment for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause do change.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../621/case.html"[S]ince the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 377 U. S. 562 (1964). See Williams v. Rhodes, supra, at 393 U. S. 31; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 376 U. S. 17 (1964). This careful examination is necessary because statutes distributing the franchise cons ute the foundation of our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government.
Thus, state apportionment statutes, which may dilute the effectiveness of some citizens' votes, receive close scrutiny from this Court. Reynolds v. Sims, supra. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). No less rigid an examination is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to citizens who are otherwise qualified by residence and age. [Footnote 6] Statutes granting the franchise to
Page 395 U. S. 627
residents on a selective basis always pose the danger of denying some citizens any effective voice in the governmental affairs which substantially affect their lives. [Footnote 7] Therefore, if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote to some bona fide residents of requisite age and citizenship and denies the franchise to others, the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. See Carrington v. Rash, supra at 380 U. S. 96.
And, for these reasons, the deference usually given to the judgment of legislators does not extend to decisions concerning which resident citizens may participate in the election of legislators and other public officials. Those decisions must be carefully scrutinized by the Court to determine whether each resident citizen has, as far as is possible, an equal voice in the selections. Accordingly, when we are reviewing statutes which deny some residents the right to vote, the general presumption of cons utionality afforded state statutes and the traditional approval given state classifications if the Court
Page 395 U. S. 628
can conceive of a "rational basis" for the distinctions made [Footnote 8] are not applicable. See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 383 U. S. 670 (1966). The presumption of cons utionality and the approval given "rational" classifications in other types of enactments [Footnote 9] are based on an assumption that the ins utions of state government are structured so as to represent fairly all the people. However, when the challenge to the statute is, in effect, a challenge of this basic assumption, the assumption can no longer serve as the basis for presuming cons utionality. And the assumption is no less under attack because the legislature which decides who may participate at the various levels of political choice is fairly elected. Legislation which delegates decisionmaking to bodies elected by only a portion of those eligible to vote for the legislature can cause unfair representation. Such legislation can exclude a minority of voters from any voice in the decisions just as effectively as if the decisions were made by legislators the minority had no voice in selecting. [Footnote 10]
The need for exacting judicial scrutiny of statutes distributing the franchise is undiminished simply because, under a different statutory scheme, the offices subject
Page 395 U. S. 629
to election might have been filled through appointment. [Footnote 11] States do have la ude in determining whether certain public officials shall be selected by election or chosen by appointment and whether various questions shall be submitted to the voters. In fact, we have held that, where a county school board is an administrative, not legislative, body, its members need not be elected. Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education, 387 U. S. 105, 387 U. S. 108 (1967). However,
"once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.
Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
, you're asking DMC to do some mental work. Good luck with that.
Sounds like a true story.
It's so obvious when you are mad.
You would think that so called conservatives would not struggle to grasp this concept. It is the underpinning of the ethic for small government. Emerson talked about it 150 years ago.
It's a good way to spot people that lack introspection. People that will follow mindlessly those they have chosen to trust.
That you don't care that you have once again been discredited as incompetent does not show well for you. Stoic indifference is not a virtue, dimwit.Sounds like a true story.
It's so obvious when you are mad.
What is your answer, Darrin?
So, assume it was never an issue because data based on where the ID law was implemented showed the law prevented voter fraud?
You can repeat yourself, scream, handwave, jump up and down, etc but this take has been refuted. WI made that argument and when asked for proof by the court showed nothing. They lost their case on that basis.
You've had this pointed out to you 4 times now. You like to go back to your initial assertion don't you.
Now I am guessing that this si the part where you call me psuedo-intellectual or "not as smart as I think I am," but what you are doing with this tactic is monumentally stupid in and of itself. It is what really stupid, pigheaded people do when struck by cognitive dissonance.
There appears to be no foolproof solution. Any system that can be exploited, will be exploited.
You got me. She just chuckled, went on to point out the various flaws in it in rather more detail than was necessary (if you ever deal with actuaries, expect answers like this), and said "is this person serious?"Sounds like a true story.
It's so obvious when you are mad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions