[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it
But many or most blacks do have drivers licenses, and many whites do not. And the regulation does not specify race. So the regulation is not race specific. Percentages of a particular race contrasted to percentages of another cannot be a basis for deciding constitutional issues because the percentages are never equal. Therefor very few, if any, regulations could be enacted
(my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.
Poverty is not race specific. A lot of whites (and that number has been growing) are classified as poor. They also live in cities for the same reason as other races. Everything you cite as a disadvantage here can be applied to whites and other races as well. If a regulation cannot be passed if it affects poor people more than those who are not poor, then, again, very few, if any regulations can be passed since the poor of all colors are disadvantaged in every instance except those regulations which specifically target the poor for benefits. And those, it might be argued, are a burden to the non-poor who have to pay the price.
There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".
But again - that is not the issue.
|
When President Lyndon Johnson said that passing the Civil Rights Act would keep the N-words voting for the Dems for 200 years, that did not make the Act unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for other reasons (but that apparently was not an issue) but not because of what he said.
Again, these sorts of made up arguments that go outside of actual constitutional limitations in order to reach decisions which seem socially just to a particular judge replace and rewrite the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to do that. It is up to the people through their Congress (who wrote it in the first place) to amend the Constitution. Judicial activism should be opposed by both sides of the aisle since it can cut both ways, left or right.