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:
- Government ID
- Shows citizenship status (by nature of it being a Passport)
- Shows place of birth
- Shows the married last name
…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?
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
- relevant offices were within reasonable distance
- they were sufficiently manned
- all or part of the process could be done online
- the government actually strives to make these processes as user-friendly as possible
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.
It always seems to me that this wouldn’t be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy.
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.
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.
But doesn’t this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
They could do that but besides still being shitty, it may not satisfy the 19th Amendment. The text of the Amendment read:
- The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
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.
here’s the issue.
There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right. Since people with no knowledge about the subject made sure to make it as expensive as possible to enjoy a right, the psychopaths in office now have precedent.
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another. So . which do you think will fall first?
Is there an amendment that bans a tax on gun ownership?
If not, then your argument has no standing
is there an Amendment that bans a tax on any right?
if not then your argument has no standing.
Point is, requiring people to pay to exercise rights is now enshrined. and we watched it happen.
Dont stop! I’m playing sad violin music to back you up! keep typing, think of the children who wont get to fire guns without your continued effort.
Jesus Christ what’s the matter with you! I didn’t think id see the same type of insulting children here as on reddit. What ever happened to civil discourse?
So which amendment bans taxes on gun ownership. Must have missed that one.
There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right.
I looked at the receipt for a recent gun purchase, a rifle, and there are zero taxes or fees on it except sales tax which applies to nearly all items (such as video games or automobiles) for sale. There were no required licenses or classes to purchase or own this firearm.
in your state. Where I am there are requirements for everything. from buying ammo to getting separate licenses for long guns and pistols.
the weapon itself is not what I’m talking about. of course that’s taxable.
I have multiple guns. Never paid for a class, don’t need a license. Only cost was in the guns and ammo. Now, I WAS taught at an early age how to handle guns safely, and am damn near brainwashed to handle them thusly (I never leave a bullet in chamber and I still clear my weapons every time I even touch them.) That said, I do need to stop being a lazy ass and finish building my ak47 instead of leaving it half assembled. Still needs a couple of American parts and I will not risk being dinged with an illegally built firearm.
