scotticusphd t1_is06pmw wrote
Reply to comment by Odd-Seaworthiness330 in The Philadelphia Inquirer: The Supreme Court just undid a key ruling for counting undated Pennsylvania mail ballots by oldschoolskater
The voting rights act would like to have a word with you.
Odd-Seaworthiness330 t1_is21p3s wrote
You are exactly correct. The voting rights act secured the right for minorities. However, that act does not supersede the constitution of the United States. The rules were set by the Pennsylvania legislature as directed. Only the legislature can change the rules. This judge over stepped his legal authority.
scotticusphd t1_is2dkzx wrote
The voting rights act constrained what legislatures could do to curtail equal voting protections for our citizens. To suggest that this type of regulation isn't possible stands in the face of hundreds of years of precedent.
The constitution also holds up the judiciary as a co-equal branch to legislatures that can hold them in check if they step on the constitutionally-protected rights of our citizens. Discarding someone's vote because of a clerical error, when a postmark fulfills the intent and purpose of the hand-written date is fucking stupid, and suggests that dogmatic reading of one part of the constitution is somehow more important than an individual's, or in this case hundreds of individuals' right to vote.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments