Johnny Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And the fox wants to know why the chickens oppose henhouse safeguarding efforts.

---

No - it's more like the chickens want to know why the fox opposes requiring proof that you're really a chicken when voting for henhouse manager.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And the fox wants to know why the chickens oppose henhouse safeguarding efforts.

---

No - it's more like the chickens want to know why the fox opposes requiring proof that you're really a chicken when voting for henhouse manager.

---

Said the fox in his managerial capacity.

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

The only possible reason anyone would oppose ID verification in order to vote is because they want the opportunity for fraud and cheating. Period.

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

B.S. and this is actually a form of bigotry by assuming poor, young, and minorities are too stupid to obtain readily available forms of I.D. And please explain why requiring proof of citizenship ID to vote is somehow a denial of rights any more than requiring valid ID to board commercial aircraft is a denial of rights to freely travel.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

So what you are saying is that when the DNC holds its conventions, it discriminates against the poor, young, and minorities from attending because those groups do not have driver licenses or other forms of state issued IDs?

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

Where are you seeing that? I know the demos shifted a bit in the last presidential election, but i pin that more on Harris being a bad last minute stand in candidate. I expect poor, young, and minorities to still majorly vote dem in 2028.

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Democrats want to replace legacy Americans with poor, often uneducated aliens from cultures hostile to ours in an effort to create a large permanent underclass who will vote for them into perpetuity.

Republicans want to provide corporate America with an endless supply of warm bodies to suppress wages. "We're for the free market!" "What about the labor market?" "Not that market!!!!!!!"

Thune - disciple of McConnell - is as big a problem as Schumer.

The 17th amendment needs to be repealed.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), established the "one person, one vote" principle under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. When a state implements a system that allows non-citizens suffrage, it violates the Constitution and, as such, is a federal matter.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

Once again you are focusing on some particular problem of the day. These problems come and go. There are ALWAYS problems. The one thing that is constant for 250 years is the Constitution.

Voting is a State function. Clearly stated in the Constitution. THAT outwieighs any specific issue with the Democrats.

You have your priorities all wrong and if too many people think like you, we will lose our Nation. YOU DO NOT overstep the Constitution for some issue.

---

It is one thing to make a rational argument but to simply state the SAVE Act violates the Constitution with no authority to support your position is somewhat silly. The Feds have a lot to say about how states run their elections:

Moore v. Harper (2023) - The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Allen v. Milligan (2023) - A district is not equally open as required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when minority voters (unlike their majority peers) face bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the state, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a non-minority voter.

Brnovich v. DNC (2021) - To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations may result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. But the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.

Cooper v. Harris (2017) - A state may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) - Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications, but even-handed restrictions protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process are permissible. A state law's burden on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.

Voting Rights Act (1965) - Authorized federal oversight of registration and required "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in specific jurisdictions, resulting in a dramatic increase in minority voter registration.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a state, regardless of where they reside. Legislators represent people, rather than areas, and weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) - The constitutional requirement that representatives be chosen "by the people of the several states" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another person's vote.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - supra.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

So what you are saying is that when the DNC holds its conventions, it discriminates against the poor, young, and minorities from attending because those groups do not have driver licenses or other forms of state issued IDs?

---

Yall really need to work on reading comprehension. I made no moral judgements or prescriptive prompts. I simply stated facts and then provided my deductive reasoning. Let's look at the facts:

Fact number 1: The people with out IDs or driver licenses are more likely to be poor, young, or nonwhite. Do you dispute this fact?
New CDCE Survey Shows Millions Lack ID as Voter ID Laws Spread to More States | CDCE l Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement https://share.google/61rr4X1Shn7zEqLy9

Fact number 2: the aforementioned people are more likely to vote Democrat. Do you dispute this fact?

Fact number 3: the aforementioned people have low voter turnout. Do you dispute this fact?

My only nonfact is this: I believe requiring these people to obtain state IDs or drivers licenses will lead to less of them voting. Do you dispute my conclusion?

Again, not making any moral judgements or prescriptive claims, just giving my reasoning for why dems are against it in the most steel-man agrument in good faith.

---

All your demographics are for voter id. Anyone without a photo id is not likely to vote at all. If they aren't able/willing to get one, they are not likely to be willing to go to the trouble to vote,, unless someone votes for them. It's a ridiculous argument.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

Once again you are focusing on some particular problem of the day. These problems come and go. There are ALWAYS problems. The one thing that is constant for 250 years is the Constitution.

Voting is a State function. Clearly stated in the Constitution. THAT outwieighs any specific issue with the Democrats.

You have your priorities all wrong and if too many people think like you, we will lose our Nation. YOU DO NOT overstep the Constitution for some issue.

---

BearFan33 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

Once again you are focusing on some particular problem of the day. These problems come and go. There are ALWAYS problems. The one thing that is constant for 250 years is the Constitution.

Voting is a State function. Clearly stated in the Constitution. THAT outwieighs any specific issue with the Democrats.

You have your priorities all wrong and if too many people think like you, we will lose our Nation. YOU DO NOT overstep the Constitution for some issue.

---

It is one thing to make a rational argument but to simply state the SAVE Act violates the Constitution with no authority to support your position is somewhat silly. The Feds have a lot to say about how states run their elections:

Moore v. Harper (2023) - The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Allen v. Milligan (2023) - A district is not equally open as required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when minority voters (unlike their majority peers) face bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the state, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a non-minority voter.

Brnovich v. DNC (2021) - To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations may result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. But the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.

Cooper v. Harris (2017) - A state may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) - Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications, but even-handed restrictions protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process are permissible. A state law's burden on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.

Voting Rights Act (1965) - Authorized federal oversight of registration and required "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in specific jurisdictions, resulting in a dramatic increase in minority voter registration.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a state, regardless of where they reside. Legislators represent people, rather than areas, and weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) - The constitutional requirement that representatives be chosen "by the people of the several states" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another person's vote.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - supra.

---

I never mentioned the SAVE act. I honestly don't know enough about it to comment one way or another. So, I really can't comment, I will take your word on it.


I said elections are a State responsibility and the Constitution clearly says "manner".

As for the Court cases, Roe vs Wade was on a similar list for abortion. Constitution said State. We are back to the States... We did a lot in the 60's that would not pass modern day muster Constitutionally.

So we will see. There are proponents on both sides, will be interesting.

---

Who wins when a state intentionally violates federal law?

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

Once again you are focusing on some particular problem of the day. These problems come and go. There are ALWAYS problems. The one thing that is constant for 250 years is the Constitution.

Voting is a State function. Clearly stated in the Constitution. THAT outwieighs any specific issue with the Democrats.

You have your priorities all wrong and if too many people think like you, we will lose our Nation. YOU DO NOT overstep the Constitution for some issue.

---

It is one thing to make a rational argument but to simply state the SAVE Act violates the Constitution with no authority to support your position is somewhat silly. The Feds have a lot to say about how states run their elections:

Moore v. Harper (2023) - The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Allen v. Milligan (2023) - A district is not equally open as required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when minority voters (unlike their majority peers) face bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the state, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a non-minority voter.

Brnovich v. DNC (2021) - To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations may result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. But the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.

Cooper v. Harris (2017) - A state may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) - Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications, but even-handed restrictions protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process are permissible. A state law's burden on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.

Voting Rights Act (1965) - Authorized federal oversight of registration and required "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in specific jurisdictions, resulting in a dramatic increase in minority voter registration.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a state, regardless of where they reside. Legislators represent people, rather than areas, and weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) - The constitutional requirement that representatives be chosen "by the people of the several states" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another person's vote.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - supra.

---

I never mentioned the SAVE act. I honestly don't know enough about it to comment one way or another. So, I really can't comment, I will take your word on it.


I said elections are a State responsibility and the Constitution clearly says "manner".

As for the Court cases, Roe vs Wade was on a similar list for abortion. Constitution said State. We are back to the States... We did a lot in the 60's that would not pass modern day muster Constitutionally.

So we will see. There are proponents on both sides, will be interesting.

---

Who wins when a state intentionally violates federal law?

---

It is a State right. Can't just change because we don't like it.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Archie3 said:

---

Perhaps ten years ago you could claim that Voter ID would harm Democrats due to their base being made of younger, less-white, poorer demographics (those who vote less and don't always have ID), but reality has begun to shift the other way. If you look at the data now, it's increasingly older, whiter, wealthier, more educated demographics that have become Democratic mainstays (Texas suburbs shifting blue is an example of this). It's part of why if you look at low-turnout elections, such as special elections, you're seeing substantial Democratic overperformance. The same demographics that vote frequently and have their papers are voting Democratic by increasing margins.

That said, I've always felt that, no matter the case, Voter ID should always be implemented. I think we need to make IDs a bit more straightforward to obtain- tons of people don't think to get their passport until they're going outside the country- but most countries around the world have stricter Voter ID laws than we do, and they manage just fine.

---

You guys are missing the point. It is a State decision, not Federal. Most States require some form of ID already.

If I am not mistaking only 11 do not require an ID. It is clear in the Constitution, it is up to the States to determine the manner of elections. I do not want anymore Federalism than we already have.

---

Once again, you're ironically missing the point.

The question is not one of federalism but why Democrats oppose improving election integrity.

---

Once again you are focusing on some particular problem of the day. These problems come and go. There are ALWAYS problems. The one thing that is constant for 250 years is the Constitution.

Voting is a State function. Clearly stated in the Constitution. THAT outwieighs any specific issue with the Democrats.

You have your priorities all wrong and if too many people think like you, we will lose our Nation. YOU DO NOT overstep the Constitution for some issue.

---

It is one thing to make a rational argument but to simply state the SAVE Act violates the Constitution with no authority to support your position is somewhat silly. The Feds have a lot to say about how states run their elections:

Moore v. Harper (2023) - The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Allen v. Milligan (2023) - A district is not equally open as required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when minority voters (unlike their majority peers) face bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the state, that renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a non-minority voter.

Brnovich v. DNC (2021) - To the extent that minority and non-minority groups differ with respect to employment, wealth, and education, even neutral regulations may result in some predictable disparities in rates of voting and non-compliance with voting rules. But the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.

Cooper v. Harris (2017) - A state may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) - Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications, but even-handed restrictions protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process are permissible. A state law's burden on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.

Voting Rights Act (1965) - Authorized federal oversight of registration and required "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in specific jurisdictions, resulting in a dramatic increase in minority voter registration.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a state, regardless of where they reside. Legislators represent people, rather than areas, and weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) - The constitutional requirement that representatives be chosen "by the people of the several states" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another person's vote.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - supra.

---

I never mentioned the SAVE act. I honestly don't know enough about it to comment one way or another. So, I really can't comment, I will take your word on it.


I said elections are a State responsibility and the Constitution clearly says "manner".

As for the Court cases, Roe vs Wade was on a similar list for abortion. Constitution said State. We are back to the States... We did a lot in the 60's that would not pass modern day muster Constitutionally.

So we will see. There are proponents on both sides, will be interesting.

---

Who wins when a state intentionally violates federal law?

---

It is a State right. Can't just change because we don't like it.

---

Do you think Democrats believe elections should be governed at the state level or the federal level?

---