Sabitlenmiş Tweet
@SamJuneau @Travis_4_Trump Do you believe every picture with words on it that you see on the internet?
English
Michael Stein
11.7K posts
Michael Stein
@mstein609
Retired SW engineer. Semiprofessional cellist. He/him (to drive the MAGAts crazy). @[email protected]
Arlington, VA Katılım Kasım 2012
43 Takip Edilen186 Takipçiler
@BarryZukerman @greggnunziata Did Trump die just before you posted this, and I haven't heard about it yet?
English
@greggnunziata He may be the world's most disingenuous person.
English
This is tawdry and, frankly, beneath the dignity of a former president.
Barack Obama@BarackObama
Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. But right now, they’re under attack. Several Republican-controlled states have redrawn their congressional maps to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterm elections. Now Virginia has a chance to help level the playing field. If you live in the Commonwealth, early voting begins March 6, and Election Day is on April 21. Vote YES.
Arlington, VA 🇺🇸 English
@myonlinetrust How do you read Amendment 14, Section 2, further modified by the 19th?
English
@mstein609 Maybe I misspoke. Is voting in federal elections a fundamental constitutional right?
English
@myonlinetrust You said voting in federal elections isn't a fundamental constitutional right. But Harper says the franchise is a fundamental right or liberty (admittedly, without using the word "constitutional"). How do you reconcile your claim with the Harper language?
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny Are you saying this quote from Harper only applies to state elections?
"Classifications which might impinge on >>fundamental rights and liberties -- such as the franchise<< -- must be closely scrutinized. P. 383 U. S. 670."
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny I’m not sure that least restrictive means are necessary, as voting in federal elections isn’t a fundamental constitutional right. (Although one might argue that all people, whether citizen or not, have a constitutional right to vote for senators, the court has not held as such.)
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny The state has an interest in voting integrity, but I'd argue for least restrictive means as in RFRA. As applied to Hobby Lobby, the Court held that the government could pay for contraception to protect HL's religious rights. So too for docs it demands. 2/end
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny Not Harper by itself, but: "Held: A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a >>fee<< or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Other decisions clarify this don't mean the government has to provide transportation costs, etc. 1/
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny It seems to matter whether that fee is charged by the government itself, and cannot be avoided by the would-be voter even in theory. You yourself pointed out that Harper was not based on the 24th Amendment.
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny Only fun under your interpretation that an incidental fee paid to meet a reasonable requirement is a tax.
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny If that new ID is the only thing acceptable for voting, then the driver's license is NOT acceptable ID for voting. But the hypothetical said a license WAS an acceptable identification. You really don't see the contradiction there?!
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny Yes, I read it as meaning new to all voters.
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny That would seem to be the case. Complication: person lives in state A, but was born in B. B demands a fee, but from its POV isn't charging for voting access, so is doing nothing wrong. A might be liable for B's fee. Or maybe the feds. Fun ahead!
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny To pay money to which government?
Are you saying it would be the state that would be sued for the implementation of it?
English
@myonlinetrust @QuantumFlux1964 @DrJohnEastman @TinPotPourri Has anyone ever litigated that?
There are inconsistencies in different areas of law. If we apply Bruen reasoning to photo ID, since there was no photo ID requirement at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, it lacks necessary historical precedent.
English
@mstein609 @QuantumFlux1964 @DrJohnEastman @TinPotPourri Doesn’t the exercise of other rights, like the right to bear arms, require having an ID that isn’t free?
English
Liar. Enhanced Drivers licenses, such as those issued in MI, MN, NY, VT, and WA, all qualify. And any fed, state, or tribal gov't-issued photo id--that includes drivers licenses--qualify if accompanied by a US birth certificate or hospital record of birth; etc. Passport not required.
Brian Allen@allenanalysis
This exchange just happened on the Senate floor. Cornyn: “I don’t understand how the SAVE Act disenfranchises voters.” Durbin: “Happy to explain. Driver’s licenses don’t qualify under the bill. 50% of Americans don’t have passports.” Cornyn: “Why not just amend it?” Durbin: “When’s the last time the Senate actually amended a bill?” Silence. The SAVE Act requires passport-level documentation to register to vote. 50% of Americans don’t have a passport. The people least likely to have passports: the elderly, the poor, rural Americans, young first-time voters. The people most likely to have passports: wealthy Americans. This is not voter protection. This is voter selection. And when a senator suggested fixing it — his own colleague couldn’t name the last time the Senate amended anything. That’s the Senate in 2026.
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny Did you, or did you not, read "new" as meaning an entirely new photo ID separate from a driver's license, passport, etc.?
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny Why would people who already have an ID need a new one?
I don’t see how “acceptable” is self-contradictory.
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny The fundamental question to my mind is whether the act will mean the only even theoretically possible way some people can register is to pay money to the government. Because it vaguely leaves it to the states to come up with alternate proofs, it will be case by case. 2/end
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny I explained the other way to read it: new to the person. And why. You haven't explained why my point about the word "acceptable" being self-contradictory under your interpretation is invalid. 1/
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny Again, not how I read the hypothetical. If you take "new" to mean a brand-new document everyone must purchase, then the documents mentioned as ones most people have would NOT be _acceptable_ voter ID. But that contradicts the hypothetical calling them acceptable!
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny The hypothetical was about people who did have a drivers license or other acceptable ID.
Anyway, I see three names on the opinion. Do you really think those three names would strike down voter ID laws under the 14th Amendment?
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny Decision. But dissenters would pretty clearly have agreed on no fees; they considered even the non-fee burdens too much. Concurrers mentioned precedents' strict scrutiny on fees without explicitly saying they agreed with it. I read at least 6-3 for no fees.
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny And you’re quoting from the concurrence? Or the decision?
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny So I take it as new to the voter who never had a driver's license or passport, not a new type of ID that all must have regardless of other government-issued photo ID they already possess. 2/end
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny I don't take it that way, because it talks about most having acceptable (which I interpret as acceptable for the law, not "common sense" acceptable) ID. It immediately goes on to say that Indiana furnishes photo ID for free. 1/
English
@QuantumFlux1964 @DrJohnEastman @TinPotPourri The text following what I quoted from the decision goes on to say that Indiana provides a photo ID for free, and how making a trip to get it is not a substantial burden. Not being willing to pay for a blue check, I left it out.
English
@QuantumFlux1964 @DrJohnEastman @TinPotPourri I do not ignore it. Because it talks about "most" having "acceptable identification" I interpret "new" as meaning new to the voter who lacks any acceptable photo ID. Are you interpreting it as an entirely new type of ID that all voters, even those with passports, must get?
English
@myonlinetrust @PolitiBunny I'll just link to another post where I quoted the relevant language.
x.com/i/status/20324…
Michael Stein@mstein609
@DrJohnEastman @TinPotPourri Ahem. "The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification."
English
@mstein609 @PolitiBunny Hmm. I’ve read that decision and I must have missed where it says that.
English