Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws in test of Voting Rights Act

[ClaraD]

there is no such thing

really? You might want to tell Judge Rehnquist that....his words ....

1974 Richardson v. Ramirez case, Justice Rehnquist wrote: “Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’ right.”

1972 decision in Dunn v. Blumstein, Justice Marshall stated, “In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.”

and the 14th and 15th amendments both disagree with you....

1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– Section 2

 

[ClaraD]

you are confused -there is not actual constitutional right to vote--what there is a is a prohibition on denying someone the ability to vote based on race, etc. I have posted the proof of this dozens of times

yeah and the 2nd doesn't expressly give you the right to own any gun either.....it gives the right to form a militia and they can own a gun.

 

[Rawley]

Oh you're right. Computers stop working after the number 6 million. Could never work in CA.
lol

Colorado's system has a well maintained voter registration roll, ergo if CA were to adopt it, they'd have to use that too. Our system isn't merely mailing out ballots, it's a....system. Thought the word "system" sort of gave that away, but perchance not.

I know, CA isn't as tall, handsome, and athletic as Colorado. It's also dirtier, Californians have no pride in their State. But if they were to adopt Colorado's mail-in system, they wouldn't have the problems described here. It's not impossible, not even for California.

I repeat myself. Sticking your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA will not solve California's issues. It took years of litigation and an order from a Federal judge just to get the Democratic politicians to start cleaning up the voter rolls.

 

[TurtleDude]

yeah and the 2nd doesn't expressly give you the right to own any gun either.....it gives the right to form a militia and they can own a gun.

again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the bill of rights. the bill of rights gives me NOTHING-it prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from encroaching on rights I already had. In other words, it prevents a government that was never given the power to restrict gun ownership from restricting gun ownership

 

[Rawley]

Does this process have a verifiable chain of custody?

No. But I don't see how normal ballot processing for in person voting is verifiable either.

 

[Ikari]

I repeat myself. Sticking your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA will not solve California's issues. It took years of litigation and an order from a Federal judge just to get the Democratic politicians to start cleaning up the voter rolls.

I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears. Everything I said is correct. CA could indeed adopt CO's system. Your population being large doesn't mean that the post office or computers don't work. It's like saying you can't use Python in CA because your population is too much.

 

[TurtleDude]

really? You might want to tell Judge Rehnquist that....his words ....

1974 Richardson v. Ramirez case, Justice Rehnquist wrote: “Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’ right.”

1972 decision in Dunn v. Blumstein, Justice Marshall stated, “In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.”

and the 14th and 15th amendments both disagree with you....

1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– Section 2

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

read this and get back to me. I noted you cannot be denied a vote based on being black, female, etc. that is not the same as having a right to vote. I realize that is a sophisticated argument I suspect you, and many others, don't understand. but the difference is important

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws in test of Voting Rights Act

"Minority groups will now have to meet a much higher standard beyond showing that a change presents a burden to voting," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of Califorinia, Irvine.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two election laws in the 2020 battleground state of Arizona that challengers said make it harder for minorities to vote.

The case was an important test for what's left of one of the nation's most important civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court scaled back in 2013. A remaining provision allows lawsuits claiming that voting changes would put minority voters at a disadvantage in electing candidates of their choice.


Civil rights groups were hoping the Supreme Court would use the Arizona case to strengthen their ability to challenge the dozens of post-2020 voting restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures in the wake of Donald Trump's defeat.

So can anyone tell me how this sensible law makes it harder for Minorities ??? How is it not the same for Non-Minorities???
Does it have EXTRA obstacles for ONLY MINORITIES? Are there extra hoops "Minorities" have to jump thru (that NON-MINORITIES Don't have to jump thru) ???.....

Or is this just another attempt by the PROPAGNDIST to Fool the Brain Dead Sheep into making it easier for Voter Fraud ?...
Or is this just another example of how Racist the DEM's are and think "Minorities" are so incompetent that they can not do what others do ?...

Like this guy points out:

 

[Luce]

you are confused -there is not actual constitutional right to vote--what there is a is a prohibition on denying someone the ability to vote based on race, etc. I have posted the proof of this dozens of times

um

Amendment 15
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

 

[TurtleDude]

um

duh-if there is an opportunity to vote-then people cannot be denied that merely due to their race, gender, etc. that's not the same as having a constitutional right to vote

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

 

[ClaraD]

again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the bill of rights. the bill of rights gives me NOTHING-it prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from encroaching on rights I already had. In other words, it prevents a government that was never given the power to restrict gun ownership from restricting gun ownership

The Bill of Rights is not the whole Constitution...the entire Constitution has 27 amendments...

 

[Luce]

duh-if there is an opportunity to vote-then people cannot be denied that merely due to their race, gender, etc. that's not the same as having a constitutional right to vote

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

So there is no constitutional right to vote because the constitution says we have a right to vote.

Ooooookay.

 

[ClaraD]

duh-if there is an opportunity to vote-then people cannot be denied that merely due to their race, gender, etc. that's not the same as having a constitutional right to vote

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

oh, but it is.....if you cannot be denied that right by the states or the federal government...it is a guaranteed right.

 

[ClaraD]

So there is no constitutional right to vote because the constitution says we have a right to vote.

Ooooookay.

he thinks that the Constitution stops with the Bill of Rights...that there isn't any Constitution other than that....which is weird.

 

[TurtleDude]

oh, but it is.....if you cannot be denied that right by the states or the federal government...it is a guaranteed right.

your opinion means nothing here. If the states decided to eliminate voting for the governor, and instead made the governor someone picked by the legislature-you wouldn't have a constitutional argument that your right to vote was eliminated. its only if you were denied voting based on race, gender etc.

from the article you apparently didn't read

The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

 

[eohrnberger]

No. But I don't see how normal ballot processing for in person voting is verifiable either.

The chain of custody of the ballot is maintained.
Around here, the following steps and conditions are routinely observed during voting:

1. Voter arrives at the polls
2. Voter ID is presented, recorded, determined if legitimate, etc.
3. Voter ID is checked by second person
4. Voter is issued a ballot and directed to the polling booth
5. Voter fills out ballot and hands to another poll worker, who feeds it into the ballot recording machine
6. The ballot recording machine is secured, such that it cannot be opened, nor the ballots accessed until unlocked when voting has concluded
7. Voter exits polling location

At no time is the ballot leaving the premises, nor once the voter ID is recorded, is the voter permitted to exit the polling location and re-enter.

The ballot never leaves the controlled area of the polling location.

 

[TurtleDude]

he thinks that the Constitution stops with the Bill of Rights...that there isn't any Constitution other than that....which is weird.

I think people who really have no education in constitutional law, look stupid arguing on this topic with someone who has an extensive education in this field

 

[ClaraD]

your opinion means nothing here. If the states decided to eliminate voting for the governor, and instead made the governor someone picked by the legislature-you wouldn't have a constitutional argument that your right to vote was eliminated. its only if you were denied voting based on race, gender etc.

from the article you apparently didn't read

The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

my opinion nor yours matters...what matters is what the Supreme Court has said multiple times...and that is that citizens that are above age 18 have the right to vote...for electors....not the right to vote which is separate.

 

[ClaraD]

I think people who really have no education in constitutional law, look stupid arguing on this topic with someone who has an extensive education in this field

I have education in Constitutional law....the one who is looking stupid isn't me.

 

[cpwill]

And you believe that shit?

I tend not to say that intent is evil unless I can show it or have reasonable evidence in it's favor. Attribution Error isn't that.

 

[TurtleDude]

my opinion nor yours matters...what matters is what the Supreme Court has said multiple times...and that is that citizens that are above age 18 have the right to vote...for electors....not the right to vote which is separate.

you continue to miss the point.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have education in Constitutional law....the one who is looking stupid isn't me.

seriously-what law school?

you sure don't seem to be able to understand this


The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

 

[ClaraD]

seriously-what law school?

you sure don't seem to be able to understand this


The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

dude, you first....what law school did you go to? They need their degree back, if you have one. You do not need to go to a formal law school to take a course in Constitutional law...in fact, in Texas it was mandated in high school. I took 2 years of it in high school and took it as an elective for multiple years in college.

 

[MTAtech]

duh-if there is an opportunity to vote-then people cannot be denied that merely due to their race, gender, etc. that's not the same as having a constitutional right to vote

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...

democracyjournal.org

That's the same argument the Southern white racists used to defend Jim Crow laws -- "these laws don't mention colored people. They apply to everyone equally." So, they passed laws making it a requirement to register to vote to have the application signed by two already registered voters. The fact that there weren't any already registered black voters hampered other black people from registering.

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made those practices illegal.
see:
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-do-i-protect-my-right-to-vote-/jim-crow-laws.html

 

[TurtleDude]

dude, you first....what law school did you go to? They need their degree back, if you have one. You do not need to go to a formal law school to take a course in Constitutional law...in fact, in Texas it was mandated in high school. I took 2 years of it in high school and took it as an elective for multiple years in college.

LOL you don't have a law degree and you fail to understand an article that clearly spells out that there is no constitutional right to vote.