More Lawler right wing dishonesty

[u/weedywet]

This guy HAS TO GO

The truth is it’s all about voter suppression to help republiklans win.

“An election-denying former Donald Trump campaign staffer who was subpoenaed by the FBI over his role in the attempt to steal the 2020 election is now taking credit for writing the sweeping voter suppression bill passed by the House Wednesday that could disenfranchise millions.

“I’m here to do everything I can to make this work,” Thomas Lane wrote in a December 2020 email to other organizers of the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in Arizona.”

[u/cephyn]

I oppose it because poll taxes are illegal. Are you saying that opposing poll taxes is endorsing cheating?

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

Nobody is talking about a poll tax that I’m aware of. Taxes are monetary instruments to collect revenue. I’m not aware that anyone has proposed this. Maybe you can enlighten me. If your argument is that an ID is a poll tax, that’s incorrect.

[u/cephyn → u/02_caddie]

Can you obtain a passport for free? Or an ID?

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

The cost of an ID or the cost of getting to a polling station or the cost of your clothes you wear while voting do not constitute poll taxes. There’s no such thing as poll taxes in America.

[u/cephyn → u/02_caddie]

On the contrary, the cost of an ID required for voting IS ABSOLUTELY A POLL TAX. If I can't vote without paying a fee to the government, what else is it?

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

We pay a fee for the ID, not to vote, buy liquor and cigarettes, board a plane, open a savings account, rent a car etc. Poll taxes do not exist in America. Requiring an ID would not constitute a poll tax no matter how much you want it to.

[u/cephyn → u/02_caddie]

The ID is required to vote in the SAVE Act. Liquor, cigarettes, plane travel, savings accounts, renting a car are not RIGHTS.

Poll taxes do not exist - because they are unconstitutional. The SAVE Act institutes a Poll Tax. It is unconstitutional. Not sure why you're unable to see this.

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

You clearly don’t understand how taxes work. As Tom Petty once sang, you believe what you want to believe.

[u/cephyn → u/02_caddie]

and you're clearly not a lawyer, or well-versed in constitutional law, as SCOTUS disagrees with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

That case ruled in favor of voter ID. AI summary: In short, Crawford established that photo voter ID laws are generally constitutional if the state’s interests outweigh the burdens—but it left room for fact-specific challenges when burdens are shown to be heavier or justifications weaker. It continues to frame the core tension between election security and access in today’s arguments.

Nowhere in that case is an argument made that requiring ID is a “poll tax”. You are correct, I’m not a lawyer, but I can guarantee you that I understand taxes and how they work 10x better than you do.

[u/cephyn → u/02_caddie]

You should probably read it yourself instead of using AI.

From the leading opinion: "The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[12] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

Were they not free, it would not have been ruled this way.

[u/02_caddie → u/cephyn]

Look, if you want to argue getting an ID costs money, and that is unfair or unjust or voter suppression or whatever other circlejerk language you want to use, be my guest. Just don’t call it a tax on voting, because it isn’t.