Comments on: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument on Indiana Voter ID Case http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=518 By: Steve Ziemba http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/comment-page-1/#comment-203521 Steve Ziemba Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:14:39 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/#comment-203521 Wrong again Demo Rep. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, then everyone who walked into the polls had their civil rights violated, and were therefore injured. This means that they all have standing. The "formality" I mention is to just picking a specific one to represent the case. I'm used to your picking out sections of the Constitution that have no relation to the argument and you claiming that it proves your right. In this instance, Article III Section 2 only deals with jurisdiction matters. Try the 24 Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the poll tax, which the forced purchasing of an ID could very well be construed as one. Wrong again Demo Rep. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, then everyone who walked into the polls had their civil rights violated, and were therefore injured. This means that they all have standing. The “formality” I mention is to just picking a specific one to represent the case.

I’m used to your picking out sections of the Constitution that have no relation to the argument and you claiming that it proves your right. In this instance, Article III Section 2 only deals with jurisdiction matters. Try the 24 Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the poll tax, which the forced purchasing of an ID could very well be construed as one.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/comment-page-1/#comment-202725 Demo Rep Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:13:00 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/#comment-202725 Formalities matter BIG time under U.S. Const Art. III, Sec. 2. NO *formal* injured party = NO *standing* = NO case. Formalities matter BIG time under U.S. Const Art. III, Sec. 2.

NO *formal* injured party = NO *standing* = NO case.

]]> By: Steve Ziemba http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/comment-page-1/#comment-202643 Steve Ziemba Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:16:27 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/#comment-202643 Demo Rep is in error. Since this law affects everyone going into the voting booth, this law may (depending on how it's ultimately decided) violate all of their civil rights, whether they choose to comply with it voluntarily or not. After all, just because a person voluntarily complies with a law that illegally restricts his/her civil rights, it doesn't make the law legal. Therefore, getting a "victim" will just be a formality. In order to improve the chances of winning their case though, they'll probably pick an economically disadvantaged person who doesn't drive, and therefore doesn't have a picture driver's license, and doesn't have, for some reason or another, any other type of picture ID. Then they can show a hardship, both physically and financially, in order for that person to cast his/her vote. My own feeling on this is that I don't necessarily mind a law that makes a voter prove who he says he is. But if it IS a financial hardship for someone to get a picture ID, then the government who passed the law should provide one at no charge. Demo Rep is in error. Since this law affects everyone going into the voting booth, this law may (depending on how it’s ultimately decided) violate all of their civil rights, whether they choose to comply with it voluntarily or not. After all, just because a person voluntarily complies with a law that illegally restricts his/her civil rights, it doesn’t make the law legal. Therefore, getting a “victim” will just be a formality. In order to improve the chances of winning their case though, they’ll probably pick an economically disadvantaged person who doesn’t drive, and therefore doesn’t have a picture driver’s license, and doesn’t have, for some reason or another, any other type of picture ID. Then they can show a hardship, both physically and financially, in order for that person to cast his/her vote.

My own feeling on this is that I don’t necessarily mind a law that makes a voter prove who he says he is. But if it IS a financial hardship for someone to get a picture ID, then the government who passed the law should provide one at no charge.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/comment-page-1/#comment-202560 Demo Rep Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:49:13 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/09/us-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-indiana-voter-id-case/#comment-202560 NO injured party = NO *standing* = NO case Too difficult for the many MORONS doing election law cases to understand. NO injured party = NO *standing* = NO case

Too difficult for the many MORONS doing election law cases to understand.

]]>