U.S. Supreme Court green lights straight-party voting in Michigan

I have no problem with banning straight party voting.

I do think the longer lines, however, were significant and not sufficiently addressed.

With sufficient numbers of extra polling locations and/or booths, then eliminating the practice doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

Asking a person to vote for candidates individually is by no means undemocratic, but we must ensure that every person has a reasonable (i.e. not unnecessarily impeded by lines) chance to vote in a timely manner.

 

Big deal. Straight party voting has been allowed for decades around the country. Democrats, who got it passed in Texas many years ago, loved it. Until the state turned red.

 

I don't care about the practice, either. My only concern is the time in the voting line.

I wouldn't have voted to change it, personally.

 

Oh, there's no doubt the court's reasoning is specious with no basis in fact whatsoever, but that's what we expect out of our increasingly leftist court system. .But the fact is that straight party voting has been around for awhile.

But I would like for the court to explain to me why they think African Americans are too stupid to to go through a ballot line by line. From a legal standpoint,The length of the voting lines should have no bearing on the decision. Freedom has a price. Standing in line to vote is a small one to pay.

 

The first point is a concern. The rationale does seem a bit patronizing.

Voting lines are a problem if they are disproportionately longer in certain areas. If everyone has a long line, fine. If only majority African-American districts have long lines, that's a problem. (The same would be true in reverse.) If lines are not proportionate, it raises the question of intentional voter suppression.

 

Disagree on the lines part, from strictly a legal standpoint. Hate standing in line myself.

Why would only majority African American districts have long lines if straight party voting were eliminated? To use your word, is this more of the same patronization? Why does the court believe African Americans lack the ability to read and comnprehend at the same rate other races do? Maybe the court could answer that one as well.

 

My understanding is that there is a higher rate of utilization in these areas. Lines would lengthen because it takes longer to vote individually than a straight ticket, no matter who is voting.

 

From a legal standpoint, that's an even worse reason for the decision. More polling stations are the solution if that's really a concern.

 

Yes, but more polling stations didn't go along with the change, as I understand it.

Regardless, disproportionate effect is typically justification to invalidate a law, even if the intent isn't to discriminate. The unintentional effects matter as much as the intentional effects.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk