(07-14-2021 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like I said, it makes sense to establish a floor to equal access that all must abide by. But should a jurisdiction want to enhance access for all their constituents, I don't see a compelling reason to keep said jurisdiction from doing that, so long as the agreed upon floor was met.

Sounds a lot like the reasoning behind “separate but equal”.

As long as certain minimums are met, no problem with providing a little extra for some.

We already know that jurisdictions provide more or less service for their constituents than others do. Does the decision of a county to raise taxes to fund after school care at their public schools also create a "separate but equal" situation?

It's almost like you seem to think that government services are uniform across the entire state...

state agency

So, I gather you are fine with rich areas having better schools, say Fort Bemd County, vs. poor ones, say, Presidio County, as long as the three R’s are taught.

Everybody is equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others.

Seriously, how does prohibiting 24 hour voting adversely impact minority voters? Is there a large population of black voters who won’t vote at all if they cannot vote at 4:00 am? I can see lots of reasons not to have 24 voting - you need election officials on duty, poll watchers, security guards, other workers just to enable two votes to be cast? Especially when those two votes could as easily be cast at another time within the weeks of extended voting?

Clearly this is a made up problem, not a real one.