You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #160: Am I sure I read it correctly? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. Am I sure I read it correctly?
Yeah, pretty sure.

You seem to have read the "low scrutiny" test to mean that it's easier to bring suit under low scrutiny. But, it's always equally easy to bring a lawsuit. All you have to do is file the complaint. It's the same degree of difficulty every time. No, I'm fairly certain that at "low scrutiny" the Court will stay out of the state's business 99 times out of 100. If "low scrutiny" is the test, the court almost always allows the state's law or action to stand without judicial interference. At heightened scrutiny, on the other hand, there's a good chance that the Court might do something to make the state change its law or its policies.

And you're right in your second paragraph to suggest that the votes aren't equal. But so what? The citizens of the state elected their legislators. Their legislators chose this unequal system. The courts will not change that unless someone can show that a protected Constitutional right has been violated by the state's action. Understand that the state never treats everyone equally, and it's not required to do so by the Constitution. Sixteen-year-olds can drive in Georgia, for example. Fourteen-year-olds can not. Is that unequal? Yes. Is that state law unconstitutional? No.

In order to win an equal protection case, we must be able to show that a constitutionally protected right has been violated. So far, we can't even show a single person who was impermissibly denied the right to vote in this past election. Plus, it's highly unlikely that the Court would rule that an electronic vote does not constitute a "real" vote. The Constitution does not guarantee paper ballots or a paper trail. The Court is likely to conclude that the state legislators, as the duly elected representatives of their citizens, are free to choose whatever voting system that they feel is appropriate. The Court prefers not to second guess the elected representatives of the people, and it will only do so when a protected Constitutional right has been violated.

Hope that helps. :)

-Laelth

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC