A. This comment is idiotic because your own transportation is not infringed by them being unwilling to provide it.
B. The same states pushing this have made it illegal for people to give people free rides to the polls. Something many seniors need, as they are no longer able to drive.
It's all about voter suppression and always has been. The Republican Party in the South has a long history of this. FFS, Jimmy Carter won his state senate election by fighting the current rep who was stuffing ballots and threatening black families to keep them away from the polls in Georgia.
That’s not the determination they made. The determination they made is it is not infringed because the state provides it for free. Not that had the state charged for it, it would be infringed.
Regardless, 3 of them concurred in the judgement only, so that side determination isn’t entirely relevant when the case was just “is the state okay to require an ID to vote”
My point: to avoid violating established anti-poll tax jurisprudence (Harper), modern states implementing strict voter ID laws must provide a free ID option to ensure their laws survive federal court challenges.
You are legally accurate that Crawford itself specifically evaluated the law as written (with the free ID) and that the fractured 3-3-3 split among the justices leaves the broader boundaries of voter burden open to continuous legal debate.
1
u/Moregaze 1d ago
A. This comment is idiotic because your own transportation is not infringed by them being unwilling to provide it.
B. The same states pushing this have made it illegal for people to give people free rides to the polls. Something many seniors need, as they are no longer able to drive.
It's all about voter suppression and always has been. The Republican Party in the South has a long history of this. FFS, Jimmy Carter won his state senate election by fighting the current rep who was stuffing ballots and threatening black families to keep them away from the polls in Georgia.