Supreme court texas voting

[sadiehawkins]

Only whites over 65 can mailin ballot. What a frickin joke this supreme court is. Biden u bettr start puttin a plan together to add to the court. If trump gets in ĺook out for the court to carry out his wishes.

 

[BioHawk]

Only whites over 65 can mailin ballot. What a frickin joke this supreme court is. Biden u bettr start puttin a plan together to add to the court. If trump gets in ĺook out for the court to carry out his wishes.

Uh....what? This is a joke, right?

 

[Tiny Hands Trump]

Definitely not trying to make voting harder (except for those under 65, where we totally are doing just that).

 

[Finance85]

Only whites over 65 can mailin ballot. What a frickin joke this supreme court is. Biden u bettr start puttin a plan together to add to the court. If trump gets in ĺook out for the court to carry out his wishes.

SCOTUS isn't reviewing the case.

 

[ATLNole1]

Only whites over 65 can mailin ballot. What a frickin joke this supreme court is. Biden u bettr start puttin a plan together to add to the court. If trump gets in ĺook out for the court to carry out his wishes.

Got a link to where it says only whites can mail in?

 

[Finance85]

Got a link to where it says only whites can mail in?

There's no link for that because it's not true.

 

[millah_22]

Only whites over 65 can mailin ballot. What a frickin joke this supreme court is. Biden u bettr start puttin a plan together to add to the court. If trump gets in ĺook out for the court to carry out his wishes.

lmao what???? is that real?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

 

[B1GDeal]

SCOTUS isn't reviewing the case.

It's the Texas SC.

Texas Limits Mail-in Voting to Only Seniors

 

[Finance85]

It's the Texas SC.

Texas Limits Mail-in Voting to Only Seniors

The news is about the SCOTUS. They declined to hear the case today. The case was previously decided by the US District Court and 5th Circuit. The 11th Circuit previously decided a similar case from Indiana.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...supreme-court-vote-by-mail-rules/73312049007/

 

[B1GDeal]

The news is about the SCOTUS. They declined to hear the case today. The case was previously decided by the US District Court and 5th Circuit. The 11th Circuit previously decided a similar case from Indiana.

Ok discuss the merits. Seems if one segment of people are allowed to request mail-in that anyone should. The reason certain states only allow them is to get the older voters who are more conservative while reducing the younger vote which is more liberal. Seems like an uneven playing field.

 

[Aardvark86]

Ok discuss the merits. Seems if one segment of people are allowed to request mail-in that anyone should. The reason certain states only allow them is to get the older voters who are more conservative while reducing the younger vote which is more liberal. Seems like an uneven playing field.

1. Start with the proposition that the states are empowered by Article I to establish the time/place/manner for elections to the us legislature, except where congress says otherwise. So, short of a claim of discrimination against some protected class (such as the OP's imaginary whites only limit), VRA issues, etc., I'd think that most state decisions about the scope of mail in voting would be subject to a rational basis (minimal) standard of review. And I'd think that a state could have a plausible rational basis for slicing/dicing by age based on legislative conceptions/findings relating to transportation and access, concerns about voting integrity, or any number of things I'm not really thinking of (eg, urban/rural distinctions). That's not to deny the political element you note, which is undeniable. But I think as we've seen in the redistricting cases, politics is definitely not a protected class, and from a constitutional perspective, I don't think age or the lack thereof is either.
2. Indeed, I'd imagine that a state could very well enact laws saying there would be no mail in voting except in situations involving actual absentee considerations.

 

[artradley]

Ok discuss the merits. Seems if one segment of people are allowed to request mail-in that anyone should. The reason certain states only allow them is to get the older voters who are more conservative while reducing the younger vote which is more liberal. Seems like an uneven playing field.

That's the point.

It's also why Texas only allows one drop box per county. Because the rural voters have easy access to that one box, while city voters do not.

It's also why North Carolina created rules designed "with almost surgical precision" (according to the federal court ruling) to target black voters. They are completely open about their efforts to make it harder to vote for people who are unlikely to vote GOP.

 

[artradley]

1. Start with the proposition that the states are empowered by Article I to establish the time/place/manner for elections to the us legislature, except where congress says otherwise. So, short of a claim of discrimination against some protected class (such as the OP's imaginary whites only limit), VRA issues, etc., I'd think that most state decisions about the scope of mail in voting would be subject to a rational basis (minimal) standard of review. And I'd think that a state could have a plausible rational basis for slicing/dicing by age based on legislative conceptions/findings relating to transportation and access, concerns about voting integrity, or any number of things I'm not really thinking of (eg, urban/rural distinctions). That's not to deny the political element you note, which is undeniable. But I think as we've seen in the redistricting cases, politics is definitely not a protected class, and from a constitutional perspective, I don't think age or the lack thereof is either.
2. Indeed, I'd imagine that a state could very well enact laws saying there would be no mail in voting except in situations involving actual absentee considerations.

You seem to be addressing the legality, not the ethics.

 

[abby97]

Ok discuss the merits. Seems if one segment of people are allowed to request mail-in that anyone should. The reason certain states only allow them is to get the older voters who are more conservative while reducing the younger vote which is more liberal. Seems like an uneven playing field.

You are wrong, anyone eligible can vote, just not by mail. Maybe you are too young to understand but older folks have more trouble doing anything. Just the facts.

 

[abby97]

That's the point.

It's also why Texas only allows one drop box per county. Because the rural voters have easy access to that one box, while city voters do not.

It's also why North Carolina created rules designed "with almost surgical precision" (according to the federal court ruling) to target black voters. They are completely open about their efforts to make it harder to vote for people who are unlikely to vote GOP.

Please explain from your liberal anti American perspective, why only Trump is prosecuted for having classified documents and not his rival or why the witnesses for the prosecution can say anything they want about Trump but the NY Judge won't let him respond?

Ya, you dems really have it tuff.

 

[B1GDeal]

It's either a secure method to vote or it isn't. Many people under 65 might have transportation or health issues. And, who really cares the "reason"... if it's a method available to one it should be available to all. I don't understand any limitations or hurdles for voting. I agree verifying identity should be done, but beyond that all voters should have the same access and methods available to them.

 

[fsu1jreed]

It's either a secure method to vote or it isn't. Many people under 65 might have transportation or health issues. And, who really cares the "reason"... if it's a method available to one it should be available to all. I don't understand any limitations or hurdles for voting. I agree verifying identity should be done, but beyond that all voters should have the same access and methods available to them.

You can't argue logic with MAGA

 

[abby97]

It's either a secure method to vote or it isn't. Many people under 65 might have transportation or health issues. And, who really cares the "reason"... if it's a method available to one it should be available to all. I don't understand any limitations or hurdles for voting. I agree verifying identity should be done, but beyond that all voters should have the same access and methods available to them.

That's the rub, it is much more difficult to guarantee who the actual voter is by mail as opposed to in person. So limiting mail-in voting seems reasonable.

 

[WDSMHAWK]

Boomers have been coddled their entire life. It shouldn't surprise people that the Texas GOP and SCOTUS continue to do it.

 

[Rifler]

I think limiting mail in voting per traditional absentee requirements makes sense,.. Limiting it simply by age of the voter seems unreasonable...

 

[Tom Paris]

Please explain from your liberal anti American perspective, why only Trump is prosecuted for having classified documents and not his rival or why the witnesses for the prosecution can say anything they want about Trump but the NY Judge won't let him respond?

Ya, you dems really have it tuff.

You're in a cult.

 

[Finance85]

Boomers have been coddled their entire life. It shouldn't surprise people that the Texas GOP and SCOTUS continue to do it.

I wasn't aware SCOTUS ruled on this issue. Can you tell us the date of that ruling? The 11th and 5th Circuits have ruled. The 5th Circuit essentially said that no rights have been taken away from anyone. BTW, mail-in votes are allowed in Texas by anyone if there's a hardship. Texas is saying being over 65 is presumed to be a hardship.