politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
IANAL but in my reading of the text of the bill the only way for a married woman that took her partner's last name (that wasn't in the military with her married name) to be able to vote if this becomes law is for them to spend at least $30 to get a USA Passport card. This would tick all the boxes the bill requires for these women:
...or as I'm calling it:
This is violation of the 24th Amendment banning poll Taxes.
In this case, its a required fee married women must pay to be able to use their Constitutional guaranteed right to vote granted by the 19th Amendment. How is this not a poll tax by another name on married women?
Worse getting the card is a major pita with the documentation and photo and having to mail it for first time.
At this point the constitution is more of a guideline.
To the GOP it's just rough paper to wipe their asses.
It always seems to me that this wouldn't be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy. I know $30 can be a significant sum (plus the pictures and other expenses) but it would be less of a hurdle if
This is something Americans rarely talk about because it's just assumed that everybody knows? Maybe somebody could explain to a EU dweller.
edit: maybe I didn't phrase this properly. I'm fully aware that preventing people from voting has a long "tradition" in the US; my question was more general I guess, and meant as an "in addition to the points already mentioned".
Those in power absolutely know these things but making things more difficult is the actual point. Voter fraud is extremely rare. The justification is all bull shit.
It's ultimately about preventing people who might vote Democrat from voting. If it affects a ton of Republican voters that's fine so long as it hits disproportionately more Democrats.
As a European I have no expectation you'd had this nugget of US history, but I can fill in the gap. After slavery was outlawed in the entire USA in the 1850s (post civil war) racist bigots enacted laws preventing black Americans from using their newly gained Constitutional rights. There were lots of examples of this. In many of the southern state local leaders instituted poll taxes, which was a required fee that someone would have to pay before being able to vote, but these same laws gave exemptions to anyone whose grandfather had voted in a prior election. Because whites had a long history of voting they were exempt from these taxes. Because newly freed slaves whose grandfathers had not been allowed to vote hadn't, the poll tax applied only to blacks. This disenfranchisement was deliberate on the part of white leaders with the intent to suppress black voting.
This is obviously fairly fucked up way to run a country, so the people of the USA passed an amendment to the US Constitution banning poll taxes on everyone. This is the 24th Amendment (passed in 1964). Better late than never.
So this new requirement on married women to pay at least $30 to get a passport card is a de facto poll tax which is outlawed by our Constitution (24th Amendment) also because it violates the 19th Amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote) as this law specifically targets married women (and not married men).
You're absolutely correct, but Donald Trump dgaf about the constitution, at most he sees it as an inconvenience, something that other people have to do or something to wave like a flag, not something for him personally to actually obey. And the scotus has no intention whatsoever of holding him to it.
I knew that, but how does it answer my question?
Consider this too. A woman has all of her ducks in a row with her married last name, and then divorces her POS republican husband. Now she needs to re-establish her identity all over again.
For the ladies out there (or anyone getting married) keep your last name. My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
Same here. :)
But doesn't this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
They didn't. People who know the wife assume her name will be the same and mistakenly call them the same.
They could waive the fee as part of it?
They could do that but besides still being shitty, it may not satisfy the 19th Amendment. The text of the Amendment read:
source
Making married women jump through the arduous hoops of obtaining a passport card (and indirect costs associated with it such as postage and photography costs) could still be possibly considered "abridged" in violation of this Constitutional Amendment. This is especially true when this new bill effectively singles out married women. Married men don't have to do any of this so it could also still be a violation on the "on account of sex" portion of the Amendment.
How about making Bubba from bumble-fuck Arkansas have to drive to some major city to register for his right to vote?
See how that can be seen as an undue burden on voting?