Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney Admits Support For JimCrow-Style Laws, no kidding (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sigh. No, I am saying that the law gets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth

    less scrutiny if it discriminates against a group that is not a suspect class.  

    Take a look here.  If a law discriminates on the basis of race, it gets "strict scrutiny" -- it can only be justified if there is a "compelling" state interest, and the law is narrowly tailored  to meet that interest.  Basically, to uphold a law that discriminates based on a suspect class, the court has to believe there's a really, really compelling purpose for enacting it, and the law is pretty much the only way of addressing that really, really compelling interest.  Laws discriminating based on a suspect class -- like Jim Crow laws, which discriminated based on race -- are almost never constitutional.  

    Laws that do not address a suspect class, or one of the groups that get mid-level scrutiny, are evaluated on a "rational basis" test.  Basically, if the government has a rational basis for the law that discriminates based on those other things -- class, wealth, age, disability, etc. -- it is upheld as constitutional under the 14th Amendment.   (Civil rights laws, not the constitution, prevent discrimination on some of those bases in certain circumstances.)  Most economic regulation is evaluated under this "rational basis" test.  

    Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (the poll tax case from 1966) essentially said that it failed a rational basis test.  The question under the rational relationship text is whether there is a rational relationship between a legitimate government interest and what the law does to further than interest.  The Harper Court held there was no relationship between the legitimate government interest of getting making sure people were qualified to vote and a poll tax:  

    Those principles apply here. For, to repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.
    There are all sorts of restrictions on voting that discriminate against one group or another.  For example, if you make 18 in between the time to register to vote and election day, you can't vote.  If you make 18 the day after election day, you can't vote. Laws that make you vote in person, or pick up an absentee or early voting ballot in person, clearly have a disproportionate impact on some groups, especially the elderly or disabled who don't have transportation.  Laws closing the polls at certain times have a disproportionate impact on those who work during the majority of the time the polls are open.  Ironically, the Voting Rights Act "discriminates" based on where you live -- there are extra burdens on certain states.  We'll see whether laws requiring some ID are constitutional or not when that issue reaches the SCOTUS.  If the SCOTUS is convinced, based on the evidence in the record of such a case, that the laws are directed to disenfranchising minority voters (i.e., racial discrimination), it would be subject to "strict scrutiny."

    I am not saying that this particular law -- discriminating in favor of military personnel -- is or is not constitutional.  What I AM saying is that it is NOT equivalent to a "Jim Crow" law -- a law that discriminates expressly based on race.  

    •  You got your law degree at wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

      1) Suspect Class:
      the Non-Military Ohio voters are made up of the "suspect class" as they are people of different races, different national origin and different religions.

      2) Rational Basis Test:
      The Ohio law violates non-Military voters Constitutional rights via the Rational Basis Test as the voting rights of the non-military members might infringe on their 14th Amendment rights -- which is the basis of the Rational Basis Test.

      3) Harper v. Board of Election
      How can you not see that Ohio's law that grants 2classes of voting rights based off of "occupation" is any different than saying 2classes of people will have separate voting rights based off of their wealth?

      Here's what the Court would have added in Harper:

      Those principles apply here. For, to repeat, wealth or fee paying [OR OCCUPATION] has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.
      The Supreme Court has ruled over and over that a State cannot have separate voting laws for people who cannot read at the same level -- yet you think it's ok for a State to have separate voting laws for people who have different job titles?!?

      I respectfully say, you would be a better 'lawyer' if you got a degree from a real college as opposed to Wikipedia which seems to be your only source for legal advice.

    •  Here's what you left out of Harper v Board of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      Elections.

      The Supreme Court Ruled:

      We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.  
        Do you see that last line?
      ".... the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate
         It is abundantly clear that the Ohio law that established 2classes of voters with separate voting laws is UN-Constitutional as the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to vote is too precious and too fundamental to allow States to f@*k with them:
      "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate
    •  All 18 year olds have the same rules (0+ / 0-)

      The laws on age restriction treat all people the same.

      YOUR 18 YEAR OLD RESTRICTION COMMENT:
           All 18 year olds, regardless of their job title and/or occupation have the exact same restrictions.

           Meaning: No age restriction law says that 18 years old who have 'this' job title can vote longer than those 18 year olds who have 'that' job title.

      YOUR POLLS CLOSING AT DIFFERENT TIMES COMMENT
          The polls close at different times for all the people.

          Meaning: No poll closing time law says that people who have 'this' job title can vote longer than those people who have 'that' job title.

      YOUR EXTRA BURDEN ON DIFFERENT STATE COMMENT
           States that have had laws that discriminate a person's right to vote by passing laws that say only people who can read can vote cannot pass new voting rights laws unless those laws are found to be Constitutional before they go into effect.

          In short, states that have been found to discriminate and violate the People's right to vote have to prove they are not writing laws that will, again, discriminate and violate the People's right to vote.

           You like to toss apples in with cupcakes.  You are trying to compare States that have the extra burden to prove they are not going back to their discriminating ways with States that are creating 2classes of voting rights for individuals, which is, itself discrimination.

           Like I said, I would not want you representing me in discrimination case as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Constitutional protected rights for individuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site