• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pennyslvania Did the Right Thing Regarding Voter ID Law

jhmd2000 said:
Some truths are self-evident. If you think that political parties always maturely accept the outcome of an election and never attempt to undermine it, I politely direct your attention to the 2000 election. Voting is important, and when a reasonable safeguard prevalent in every other (and far less significant) norms of adult behavior is readily available, we should use it. But by all means, keep repeating the mantra you've been taught. Common sense and human experience stand no chance against your beloved talking points.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows that reasonable safeguards are already currently in place, because there is exactly zero evidence of a voter fraud problem in PA. If you want a law, you should probably be able to point to something, anything, that justifies it, other than "we think it's a good idea, because you know, sanctity and all that." And human experience show us that laws that are have no apparent utility, being passed by hyper-partisan state houses, deserve the highest possible scrutiny. The burden is on the law, not on the poor whom it might disenfranchise. That seems like the most basic of common sense.
 
Arlington, you are acting heroically, but the only outlier here is 2&2. He is extreme.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yes, I did. I posted the text of the Amendments in question, which are very specific about what actions would constitute a violation of the Constitutional right protected thereby. I have yet to see anything from you or anyone else contradicting the plain text of the Amendments, other than someone's fairly weak attempt to claim that presenting the documents necessary to obtain an ID is somehow a tax. If you think the text of the Amendments mean something else then what they say, feel free to state what and why.
Click to expand...

Don't conflate simply reading the plain text of a constitutional amendment -- was that the PA Constitution, by the way? -- with the established precedent for what it takes to impose a burden on a constitutional right. Any such burden, no matter how light, must survive strict scrutiny. That requires hard evidence establishing the utility of the burden. Further, the proposed burden must be proven to not have a discriminatory impact outweighing the utility of the law. In this case, the only evidence proffered was of an disproportionate, discriminatory on the very poor. That's a slam dunk, in terms of failure.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
This is probably a good thing. Give everyone time to get an ID...a lot of time so they can not complain. If you can not get an ID in 3 years, the chances of you voting are pretty slim, so no harm, no foul. Make the ID's free for those who can prove that they can not afford it.

That should settle it.
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sgt Hulka again.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I very much do. Because they did, according to my Con Law I textbook.
Click to expand...

That's a bad assumption. Supreme Courts, both at the state and federal levels, get stuff wrong all the time. There is a big difference between legal and correct. For purposes of the debates on this board, since we have no influence over anything anyway, I always shoot for correct.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That's a bad assumption. Supreme Courts, both at the state and federal levels, get stuff wrong all the time. There is a big difference between legal and correct. For purposes of the debates on this board, since we have no influence over anything anyway, I always shoot for correct.
Click to expand...

Actually, you just shoot for whatever justification that you can find to support your particular opinion. Correct doesn't come into play at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top