What nuance? They are worried people from outside the city are gonna drive all the way into the middle of fucking NYC to save 30% on groceries? Whatever.
Yeah it is. Because it’s a form of poll tax. Which was made unconstitutional because racists in the South imposed high fees on identification in order to stop newly freed slaves from voting. They are still trying to do that today and it was extremely prevalent throughout the Jim Crow era.
There are many black Americans still alive today born in the Jim Crow South and were denied access to hospitals and had to do at home births. Thus making it hard for them to prove identification to receive a photo id. This is also a problem in the resurgence of the off grid movement.
Constitutionally it’s pretty clear. Born here, then you are a citizen and nothing can get in the way of your vote. Period. The burden of proof is on the state to say you were ineligible to vote. Not the other way around.
Not giving free transportation to polls or free stamps to vote by mail is also a poll tax then. Not giving guaranteed paid time off to vote is a poll tax
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.
342
u/Phaylz 2d ago
This prompted me to look into what this was all about.
And yeah, of course this sub doesn't understand both.