EatMoreSalmon said:
FLBear5630 said:
EatMoreSalmon said:
cowboycwr said:
FLBear5630 said:
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?
I don't care what they want, the Constitution is the Constitution. That is where we differ, I dont care Dem, GOP, MAGA, Libertarian or Green.
If they break the law as you are concerned, prosecute them.
You keep going back to the Constitution but clearly you have no clue what it says.
Because if you did you would understand that it says elections are a state matter…. Unless Congress decides to make laws on it.
Here is the text
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So as you can see Congress absolutely can make laws on it making elections a federal matter.
So are you now on board since you see the Constitution actually says elections are federal? I assume you are since you want to follow the constitution so closely…..
Yes. Federal elections can have Congressional laws. State control their own state elections fully, unless they disenfranchise voters deliberately as in the Dixiecrat south. That is why states cannot have poll taxes or some made up test of voter aptitude to control legitimate voters.
Voter ID is a far cry from any of the old southern laws. It worked like a charm in GA where minority turnout has been higher since their reforms.
So you are good with Federal gun restrictions and a National abortion ruling.? If Congress can restrict Constitutional responsibilities. The Constitution os a guideline only.
This is exactly why no one can have a real conversation with you. The SAVE act has nothing in common with either of those issues. There is straight up constitutional authority for Congress to regulate federal elections.
Do you want Congress to abandon even more of their authority than they already have?
You don't want to have conversations on issues you don't agree on. Believe it or not, EVERY one of the issues I bring up are being argued in Courts, Congress or State Governments. I do not bring up ANYTHING without first researching it. You may think the SAVE Act is constitutional, but there are many who do not. Whether you agree or want to discuss with me does not make the argument go away. I am adamant that both sides be discussed, sometimes even if I don't personally agree. I could care less (By that, I mean it does not determine my view of someone) what your ultimate position is, as long as it is based on all information not an echo chamber.
We have a problem in this Country, since social media, of echo chambers and people only going to a site to get affirmation. My goal is bringing up the other side, so at least it is discussed.
On this point, sure it does. You are talking a Constitutional States right and allowing the Federal Government to regulate it. Ok, I will grant you the 2nd Amendment is extreme, but illustrates the point. Or a better example is Abortion, the Constitution clearly does not mention Health. So, it fits under 10th Amendment, but the Feds stepped in and was found unconstitutional.
Where is the line drawn? It is a hotly contested item, especially from the more independent States, like Alaska. Constitutionality and States rights is always a relevant issue, has been since 1776.
