|
Javid posted:I look forward to the constitutional rights absolutist squad being all up in this thread the next time the SC rules on some lovely state's lovely restrictions on 2a, then! If we apply this logic to all rights I'm entirely on board, but right now we don't. oh my god
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:the problem with discussing voter supression with people who are, like javid, trying to pretend it's no big deal is that they're usually looking to invert the burden of proof
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Javid posted:I look forward to the constitutional rights absolutist squad being all up in this thread the next time the SC rules on some lovely state's lovely restrictions on 2a, then! If we apply this logic to all rights I'm entirely on board, but right now we don't. nobody should be allowed to have guns and the 2nd amendment is a historical anacronism that does not mean what gun nuts claim it means voting rights are fundamental to a democracy. gun rights are fundamental to man-children who want to cosplay
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why not just send a single postcard to every voter every year which if they don't return before the registration deadline, they get purged and can't vote that year? It's just a postcard, should be easy right. this is basically the Massachusetts system, though with a 4 year window in accordance with law
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:nobody should be allowed to have guns and the 2nd amendment is a historical anacronism that does not mean what gun nuts claim it means the only moral vote is my vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Javid posted:I look forward to the constitutional rights absolutist squad being all up in this thread the next time the SC rules on some lovely state's lovely restrictions on 2a, then! If we apply this logic to all rights I'm entirely on board, but right now we don't. Restrictions on 2a "rights": remarkably difficult to justify.  Mr. Nice! posted:the only moral vote is my vote So your arguing that moral relativism makes the right to own guns and the right to vote equally fundamental and unassailable? Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:this is basically the Massachusetts system, though with a 4 year window in accordance with law They send every voter a postcard over some interval and purge them for not filling it out? And then turn them away at the polls with "check your mail next time"? Do you have a source on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Stickman posted:So your arguing that moral relativism makes the right to own guns and the right to vote equally fundamental and unassailable? Guns cost money so the poor already have their gun rights restricted by virtue of that, keeping the poor from the ballot box too just makes things fair and equal 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Once you're registered you have to respond to one (1) postcard or vote twice (2x) per calendar decade in order to not have to register again. What hoops am I missing here? Should someone only votes in presidential elections, gets evicted but finds another apartment nearby (so they're still eligible to vote in the exact same elections they already were) and can't get time off for just one presidential election not be allowed to vote?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They send every voter a postcard over some interval and purge them for not filling it out? And then turn them away at the polls with "check your mail next time"? Not exactly. Postcard - Inactive List - Affirmation and ID required to vote - Dropped from rolls after failure to vote in two consecutive biennial state elections. VitalSigns posted:Do you have a source on this. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleinactivevoters/inactivevotersidx.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They send every voter a postcard over some interval and purge them for not filling it out? And then turn them away at the polls with "check your mail next time"? Every year the towns of the state do a census and mail people notices to confirm the residents at the address Failure to respond puts you on the inactive list and they send out a follow on letter asking you to confirm your current address. If you vote as an inactive they will require an affirmation that you live with your name and current address like a drivers license or utility bill. If you stay on the inactive list for 4 years they unenroll you and you have to reregister. It's on the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth site. (I'm phone posting so I'll have to grab the link later)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Not exactly. Postcard - Inactive List - Affirmation and ID required to vote - Dropped from rolls after failure to vote in two consecutive biennial state elections. Thanks! Let me check that out because that sounds pretty harsh for a blue state...  
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Read further.  If you go inactive (fail to confirm address) and then don't vote in two state elections (another 4 years), they purge you. That's the same terminology Georgia uses for their analogous process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Read further. Even in that paragraph it says all they have to do to have their registration restored is sign an affidavit confirming their address. Do you know if that's something they can do the day of an election?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even in that paragraph it says all they have to do to have their registration restored is sign an affidavit confirming their address. Do you know if that's something they can do the day of an election? That's how you get restored from inactive to active, not put back on the rolls after being purged. The steps: 1. Voter fails to respond the annual street list. This marks them as "inactive" and triggers a confirmation notice. They can come off of this list either by responding to the confirmation notice or by completing an affirmation, which appears doable at time of voting. If you do this, to are restored to the active voters list. 2. Voter fails to vote in two consecutive biennial state elections. At this point the voter is deregistered and may not vote until reregistration. Registered Active Voter - may vote. Registered Inactive Voter - may vote after completing an affirmation. Unregistered Voter - may not vote. ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Ah ok yeah that is a bullshit process then that obviously is going to disproportionately affect the poor. Slightly better I guess that you get two letters every year so a single lost piece of mail doesn't gently caress you but still bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
this could be solved with a simple law that mandates all states allow same day registration that clearly defines how to demonstrate it. Congress has the authority to do so, and this eliminates any registration antics while also allows for any type of voter roll purging anyone wants to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
mass's system is also bad and it is the reason there's a credible primary campaign against the person in charge of the system iirc
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
i'm in massachusetts and they hosed up and rejected my registration due to a clerical error (a couple of towns start with the same word and they put me down as having registered in the wrong one). luckily i had enough time before the presidential primary to fix it but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i'm in massachusetts and they hosed up and rejected my registration due to a clerical error (a couple of towns start with the same word and they put me down as having registered in the wrong one). luckily i had enough time before the presidential primary to fix it but still. alternate method of proving mass residency pronounce "worcester"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
other choices - billerica, leominster, gloucester.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
As an outsider it's really hurting my brain learning about these concepts of registration deadlines, inability to register on election day, aggressively clearing voter rolls, etc. It just feels so obviously like an attempt to make voting harder with no social benefit. In Canada, you can tick a box on your tax returns that permits the Canada Revenue Agency to send the necessary information to the appropriate federal, provincial, and municipal electoral authorities to update your registration. Doesn't capture everyone but it's a low effort way to keep many registrations up to date each year without explicitly remembering to update it online. Not that it matters too much because you can just do same day registration at the polls on election days anyway. Or vote + register any day of the week during the 2-3 weeks leading up to it. You can even vote if you don't have any ID with your current address if a registered voter accompanies you and vouches for you - there are a few restrictions/conditions but it's a thing. Shofixti fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Voting one time in six years is all you need to do to stay on the Ohio rolls. A voter can completely ignore the postcard and just go vote, supposedly the right they want to maintain. Someone shouldn't have to vote just to maintain their right to vote. Just because you believe in voting in every election and you're able to work out the logistics around that doesn't mean everyone should have to. If someone wants to only take the trouble to vote in a rare election where there's a candidate they give a poo poo about, that should be their right too. It's like the policy is designed to add these "personal responsibility" hurdles of reliably receiving mail and/or periodically remembering to check registration status every few years. These personal responsibility tests appear to be a feature and not a bug both for the policy makers and many posters in this thread. The fact that this would disproportionately affect people who are in the military, are students, have health issues or disabilities, who are cut off from the community in various ways, or whose lives simply have a lot of other poo poo going on taking up their time and mental real estate.... Or maybe for the posters in this thread, the barriers seem trivial and they are having trouble imagining how that might not be the case for many others? Despite all of the potential scenarios being posted? We could maybe address the issues of this law with regular education and registration status update campaigns but it would just be cheaper to not strike so many people from the polls for "moving" when the determination that they've moved clearly shows so many false positives (just by comparing number of folks removed from rolls vs actually moving out of a county as has been mentioned). So this law is removing people from rolls based on an extremely unreliable metric with a high false positive rate, to solve the possible problem of voter fraud which has been shown to occur at extremely low rates. Again, this appears to be a feature of the policy and not a bug. This discussion has been circular for pages but goddamn its like some folks in this thread agree that it should be harder for people to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Just to make sure I'm following this, the claimed problem is that people are registered in more than one place and are illegally casting multiple votes... and the solution is to remove people who haven't been voting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:Just to make sure I'm following this, the claimed problem is that people are registered in more than one place and are illegally casting multiple votes... and the solution is to remove people who haven't been voting? Well you know, after you haven't voted in a long time its only natural that the desire is pent up and suddenly you're voting all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah the obvious solution here.is to let states purge/binge in their special ways so long as they make same day registration available online, at the polling station, and through the mail-in ballot.
El Mero Mero fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
I'd fully support that mandate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Yeah the obvious solution here.is to let states purge/binge in their special ways so long as they make same day registration available online, at the polling station, and through the mail-in ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Yeah the obvious solution here.is to let states purge/binge in their special ways so long as they make same day registration available online, at the polling station, and through the mail-in ballot. I'd support this if they allowed provision of supporting documentation within, say, a week after the vote (and set up multiple drop-off locations + website to support processing). If you have same-day registration but require a bunch of documentation that people didn't bring because they thought they were registered, that's not much better than just turning people away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Knockknees posted:Someone shouldn't have to vote just to maintain their right to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:Just to make sure I'm following this, the claimed problem is that people are registered in more than one place and are illegally casting multiple votes... and the solution is to remove people who haven't been voting? This is actually a really good point. The given reason for purging the rolls is to prevent people voting multiple times. The way of identifying people who may do this is targeting people who have not voted. Surely people committing this kind of fraud will have voted in some recent election, this will not be picked up by this method. Like, it's not just that this is disproportionately targeting people it's allegedly not aimed at, it's almost certainly going to miss catching the actions it's ostensibly preventing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:This is actually a really good point. The given reason for purging the rolls is to prevent people voting multiple times. The States are required to maintain accurate voter registration lists. The amicus brief of Georgia and 14 other states listed 9 different lawsuits which had been filed for failure to maintain: quote:See, e.g., Compl., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Husted, No. 2:12-cv792 (S.D. Ohio filed Aug. 30, 2012), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Walthall Cty., Miss. Election Comm’n, No. 2:13-cv-86 (S.D. Miss. filed Apr. 26, 2013), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Jefferson Davis Cty., Miss. Election Comm’n, No. 2:13-cv-87 (S.D. Miss. filed Apr. 26, 2013), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. McDonald, No. 2:14- cv-12 (W.D. Tex. filed Jan. 27, 2014), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Martinez-Rivera, No. 2:14-cv-26 (W.D. Tex. filed Mar. 27, 2014), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Clark Cty., Miss. Election Comm’n, No. 2:15-cv-101 (S.D. Miss. filed July 27, 2015), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Noxubee Cty., Miss. Election Comm’n, No. 3:15-cv-815 (S.D. Miss. filed Nov. 12, 2015), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Montalvo, No. 7:16-cv-103 (S.D. Tex. filed Mar. 4, 2016), ECF No. 1; Compl., ACRU v. Snipes, No. 0:16-cv-61474 (S.D. Fla. filed June 27, 2016), ECF No. 1. So the states maintain they are hosed either way, basically: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-980-cert-amicus-Georgia.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
No interesting SCOTUS decisions today: we will need to wait on the gerrymandering/travel ban rulings: https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1007262520816689152 https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1007263832371318784
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:And no one has to, you just have to vote to avoid having to re-register, where registering to vote is a thing you have to do either 1) vote in the first place or 2) vote anytime you move outside of certain jurisdictions after having registered to vote the first time. I think there's a solid argument that having to register to vote is itself unacceptable, but the idea that needing to register to vote a second time is a rights violation, when there's already situations where you need to register to vote a second time is an absurd middle ground. The problem is that there are also restrictions on when you can register to vote, and if your voter registration is dropped without your knowledge then it's possible to be prevented from voting because of that, at least in places without same-day registration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
The short version of the two decisions seems to be: 1) A court does not need to defer to a statement by a foreign government as to what their law is and can consider other material. 2) Minnesota is allowed to ban t-shirts with electioneering slogans, but their current law is too ambiguous to be constitutional because it just generally bans "political" apparel and who the gently caress knows where that line is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The short version of the two decisions seems to be: Longer version:  Opinions! ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD. ET AL. Brief Background: U. S.-based purchasers of vitamin C (U. S. purchasers), filed a class-action suit, alleging that four Chinese corporations that manufacture and export the nutrient (Chinese sellers), including the two respondents here, had agreed to fix the price and quantity of vitamin C exported to the United States, in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. The Chinese sellers moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Chinese law required them to fix the price and quantity of vitamin C exports, thus shielding them from liability under U. S. antitrust law. The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (Ministry) filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, explaining that it is the administrative authority authorized to regulate foreign trade, and stating that the alleged conspiracy in restraint of trade was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government. [The issue is what level of deference a U. S. court has to give to a statement of a foreign government about what the foreign law requires.] Holding: When foreign law is relevant to a case instituted in a federal court, and the foreign government whose law is in contention submits an official statement on the meaning and interpretation of its domestic law, may the federal court look beyond that official statement? The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answered generally “no,” ruling that federal courts are “bound to defer” to a foreign government’s construction of its own law, whenever that construction is “reasonable.” In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F. 3d 175, 189 (2016). We hold otherwise. A federal court should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission, but is not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government’s statements. Instead, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 instructs that, in determining foreign law, “the court may consider any relevant material or source . . . whether or not submitted by a party.” As “[t]he court’s determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 44.1, the court “may engage in its own research and consider any relevant material thus found,” Advisory Committee’s 1966 Note on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 44.1, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 892 (hereinafter Advisory Committee’s Note). Because the Second Circuit ordered dismissal of this case on the ground that the foreign government’s statements could not be gainsaid, we vacate that court’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration. … At common law, the content of foreign law relevant to a dispute was treated “as a question of fact.”...Ranking questions of foreign law as questions of fact, however, “had a number of undesirable practical consequences.” Foreign law “had to be raised in the pleadings” and proved “in accordance with the rules of evidence.” Appellate review was deferential and limited to the record made in the trial court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, adopted in 1966, fundamentally changed the mode of determining foreign law in federal courts. The Rule specifies that a court’s determination of foreign law “must be treated as a ruling on a question of law,” rather than as a finding of fact.4 Correspondingly, in ascertaining foreign law, courts are not limited to materials submitted by the parties; instead, they “may consider any relevant material or source . . . , whether or not . . . admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Ibid. Appellate review, as is true of domestic law determinations, is de novo. ... Federal courts deciding questions of foreign law under Rule 44.1 are sometimes provided with the views of the relevant foreign government, as they were in this case through the amicus brief of the Ministry. See supra, at 2– 3. As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, Rule 44.1 does not address the weight a federal court determining foreign law should give to the views presented by the foreign government. Nor does any other rule or statute. In the spirit of “international comity,” a federal court should carefully consider a foreign state’s views about the meaning of its own laws. But the appropriate weight in each case will depend upon the circumstances; a federal court is neither bound to adopt the foreign government’s characterization nor required to ignore other relevant materials. When a foreign government makes conflicting statements, see supra, at 5, or, as here, offers an account in the context of litigation, there may be cause for caution in evaluating the foreign government’s submission. Given the world’s many and diverse legal systems, and the range of circumstances in which a foreign government’s views may be presented, no single formula or rule will fit all cases in which a foreign government describes its own law. Relevant considerations include the statement’s clarity, thoroughness, and support; its context and purpose; the transparency of the foreign legal system; the role and authority of the entity or official offering the statement; and the statement’s consistency with the foreign government’s past positions. … Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court was bound to defer to the Ministry’s brief, the court did not consider the shortcomings the District Court identified in the Ministry’s position or other aspects of “the [D]istrict [C]ourt’s careful and thorough treatment of the evidence before it.” 837 F. 3d, at 191, n. 10. The correct interpretation of Chinese law is not before this Court, and we take no position on it. But the materials identified by the District Court were at least relevant to the weight the Ministry’s submissions should receive and to the question whether Chinese law required the Chinese sellers’ conduct. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for renewed consideration consistent with this opinion. Lineup: Ginsburg, unanimous. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE ET AL. v. MANSKY ET AL. Brief Background: Minnesota law prohibits individuals, including voters, from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” inside a polling place on Election Day. Minn. Stat. §211B.11(1) (Supp. 2017). This “political apparel ban” covers articles of clothing and accessories with political insignia upon them...On Election Day, some voters ran into trouble with the ban, including petitioner Andrew Cilek, who allegedly was turned away from the polls for wearing a “Please I. D. Me” button and a T-shirt bearing the words “Don’t Tread on Me” and a Tea Party Patriots logo. MVA and the other plaintiffs argued that the ban was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to their particular items of apparel. Holding: Under Minnesota law, voters may not wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day. The question presented is whether this ban violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. … The First Amendment prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” Minnesota’s ban on wearing any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” plainly restricts a form of expression within the protection of the First Amendment. But the ban applies only in a specific location: the interior of a polling place. It therefore implicates our “‘forum based’ approach for assessing restrictions that the government seeks to place on the use of its property.” ... This Court employs a distinct standard of review to assess speech restrictions in nonpublic forums because the government, “no less than a private owner of property,” retains the “power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. … A polling place in Minnesota qualifies as a nonpublic forum. It is, at least on Election Day, government-controlled property set aside for the sole purpose of voting. The space is “a special enclave, subject to greater restriction.” … We therefore evaluate MVA’s First Amendment challenge under the nonpublic forum standard. The text of the apparel ban makes no distinction based on the speaker’s political persuasion, so MVA does not claim that the ban discriminates on the basis of viewpoint on its face. The question accordingly is whether Minnesota’s ban on political apparel is “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum”: voting. Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 806. … We first consider whether Minnesota is pursuing a permissible objective in prohibiting voters from wearing particular kinds of expressive apparel or accessories while inside the polling place. The natural starting point for evaluating a First Amendment challenge to such a restriction is this Court’s decision in Burson, which upheld a Tennessee law imposing a 100-foot campaign-free zone around polling place entrances.[W]e see no basis for rejecting Minnesota’s determination that some forms of advocacy should be excluded from the polling place, to set it aside as “an island of calm in which voters can peacefully contemplate their choices.” … Thus, in light of the special purpose of the polling place itself, Minnesota may choose to prohibit certain apparel there because of the message it conveys, so that voters may focus on the important decisions immediately at hand. But the State must draw a reasonable line. Although there is no requirement of narrow tailoring in a nonpublic forum, the State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out. See Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 808–809. Here, the unmoored use of the term “political” in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations the State has provided in official guidance and representations to this Court, cause Minnesota’s restriction to fail even this forgiving test. Again, the statute prohibits wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia.” It does not define the term “political.” And the word can be expansive. It can encompass anything “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of governmental affairs,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1755 (2002), or anything “[o]f, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state,” American Heritage Dictionary 1401 (3d ed. 1996). Under a literal reading of those definitions, a button or T-shirt merely imploring others to “Vote!” could qualify. … For specific examples of what is banned under its standard, the State points to the 2010 Election Day Policy—which it continues to hold out as authoritative guidance regarding implementation of the statute. See Brief for Respondents 22–23. The first three examples in the Policy are clear enough: items displaying the name of a political party, items displaying the name of a candidate, and items demonstrating “support of or opposition to a ballot question.” App. to Pet. for Cert. I–2. But the next example—“[i]ssue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting,” id., at I–2—raises more questions than it answers. What qualifies as an “issue”? The answer, as far as we can tell from the State’s briefing and argument, is any subject on which a political candidate or party has taken a stance.…A rule whose fair enforcement requires an election judge to maintain a mental index of the platforms and positions of every candidate and party on the ballot is not reasonable. … The next broad category in the Election Day Policy—any item “promoting a group with recognizable political views,” App. to Pet. for Cert. I–2—makes matters worse...In the run-up to the 2012 election, Presidential candidates of both major parties issued public statements regarding the then-existing policy of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation.6 Should a Scout leader in 2012 stopping to vote on his way to a troop meeting have been asked to cover up his uniform? … The State’s “electoral choices” standard, considered together with the nonexclusive examples in the Election Day Policy, poses riddles that even the State’s top lawyers struggle to solve. A shirt declaring “All Lives Matter,” we are told, could be “perceived” as political. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. How about a shirt bearing the name of the National Rifle Association? Definitely out. Id., at 39–40. That said, a shirt displaying a rainbow flag could be worn “unless there was an issue on the ballot” that “related somehow . . . to gay rights.” Id., at 38 (emphasis added). A shirt simply displaying the text of the Second Amendment? Prohibited. Id., at 40. But a shirt with the text of the First Amendment? “It would be allowed.” … That is not to say that Minnesota has set upon an impossible task. Other States have laws proscribing displays (including apparel) in more lucid terms. See, e.g., Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §319.5 (West Cum. Supp. 2018) (prohibiting “the visible display . . . of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure,” including the “display of a candidate’s name, likeness, or logo,” the “display of a ballot measure’s number, title, subject, or logo,” and “buttons, hats,” or “shirts” containing such information); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §61.010(a) (West 2010) (prohibiting the wearing of “a badge, insignia, emblem, or other similar communicative device relating to a candidate, measure, or political party appearing on the ballot, or to the conduct of the election”). We do not suggest that such provisions set the outer limit of what a State may proscribe, and do not pass on the constitutionality of laws that are not before us. But we do hold that if a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here. Lineup: Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch. Dissent by Sotomayor, joined by Breyer. Notes From Other Opinions: Sotomayor (dissenting): I agree with the Court that “[c]asting a vote is a weighty civic act” and that “State[s] may reasonably take steps to ensure that partisan discord not follow the voter up to the voting booth,” including by “prohibit[ing] certain apparel [in polling places] because of the message it conveys.” Ante, at 11–12. I disagree, however, with the Court’s decision to declare Minnesota’s political apparel ban unconstitutional on its face because, in its view, the ban is not “capable of reasoned application,” ante, at 19, when the Court has not first afforded the Minnesota state courts “‘a reasonable opportunity to pass upon’” and construe the statute, Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 308 (1979). I would certify this case to the Minnesota Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of the political apparel ban under Minn. Stat. §211B.11(1) (Supp. 2017), which likely would obviate the hypothetical line-drawing problems that form the basis of the Court’s decision today. … The Court invalidates Minnesota’s political apparel ban based on its inability to define the term “political” in §211B.11(1), so as to discern “some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out” of a polling place. Ante, at 12–13. The majority believes that the law is not “capable of reasoned application,” ante, at 19, but it reaches that conclusion without taking the preferential step of first asking the state courts to provide “an accurate picture of how, exactly, the statute works,” Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 5). It is a “cardinal principle” that, “when confronting a challenge to the constitutionality of a . . . statute,” courts “will first ascertain whether a construction . . . is fairly possible that will contain the statute within constitutional bounds,” and in the context of a challenge to a state statute, federal courts should be particularly hesitant to speculate as to possible constructions of the state law when “the state courts stand willing to address questions of state law on certification.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 78–79 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn. Stat. §480.065(3) (2016) (authorizing the Minnesota Supreme Court to answer certified questions). Certification “save[s] time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.” Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U. S. 386, 391 (1974). Neither of the majority’s proffered reasons for declining to certify this case justifies its holding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf [internal citations inconsistently omitted throughout]
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:alternate method of proving mass residency This one’s pretty good. I had never seen Worcester spelled before and was on the phone reading off a document, got to Worcester and very confused. Of course I didn’t pronounce it right, and the dude got fuckin irate that I dare mispronounce this city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
it's woostah, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
depends on your accent. if you got a heavy one it's woostah but i say wooster. gloucester is gloster.
Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that there are also restrictions on when you can register to vote, and if your voter registration is dropped without your knowledge then it's possible to be prevented from voting because of that, at least in places without same-day registration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 16:55
|
|