Actually, I think the date thing is more likely to stop legitimate votes than fraudulent ones. It is very possible to forget something like that when voting legitimately, but when you are committing fraud you are more likely to make absolutely certain you dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

That being said, it's still the law, and somebody obviously thought it was important enough to make it law, so I would still enforce it, just not sure what it accomplishes.

(11-10-2022 08:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I think the date thing is more likely to stop legitimate votes than fraudulent ones. It is very possible to forget something like that when voting legitimately, but when you are committing fraud you are more likely to make absolutely certain you dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

That being said, it's still the law, and somebody obviously thought it was important enough to make it law, so I would still enforce it, just not sure what it accomplishes.

I don't either.. It's crazy, but again PA notifies you if there's an issue with your ballot and tells you how to correct if you call a number.

(11-10-2022 10:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  ...PA notifies you if there's an issue with your ballot and tells you how to correct if you call a number.

Don't know if Michigan calls you when there's an error, but you can check online to see if they processed your ballot.

Ballot harvesting and massive mail in votes are the keys to the democrat fraud. And they know it.

(11-04-2022 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-04-2022 03:09 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you can't follow basic instructions to sign and date the envelope, should you be voting? How many chances does one get? Two, three or five? How many do overs?

The reading level is middle schoolish. If that is too tough for you, best sit this out.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Whether Republican or Democrat if you're too stupid to know how to fill out a ballot you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'd go one further and say everybody must pass some kind of basic civics exam to have the privilege. Again, that should apply to BOTH sides.

And people get upset when I bring up how well yall would fit in the Jim Crow south...... half of yall explicitly ask *for* the literal exact same things employed by them during that time..... and state explicitly why you are for those actions in a manner that is a picture perfect copy of *why* they are explicitly excluded in the Voting Rights Act.

But yet get maddy poo when the comparison is made to Jim Crow actions and rationales.

In fing amazing.... lolz....

What's it got to do with race? My idea would disqualify millions of American White Trash as well.

(11-12-2022 01:00 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(11-04-2022 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-04-2022 03:09 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you can't follow basic instructions to sign and date the envelope, should you be voting? How many chances does one get? Two, three or five? How many do overs?

The reading level is middle schoolish. If that is too tough for you, best sit this out.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Whether Republican or Democrat if you're too stupid to know how to fill out a ballot you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'd go one further and say everybody must pass some kind of basic civics exam to have the privilege. Again, that should apply to BOTH sides.

And people get upset when I bring up how well yall would fit in the Jim Crow south...... half of yall explicitly ask *for* the literal exact same things employed by them during that time..... and state explicitly why you are for those actions in a manner that is a picture perfect copy of *why* they are explicitly excluded in the Voting Rights Act.

But yet get maddy poo when the comparison is made to Jim Crow actions and rationales.

In fing amazing.... lolz....

What's it got to do with race? My idea would disqualify millions of American White Trash as well.

This.

Jim Crow was about taking the vote away from black people. That was the 'what'. HOW they did that had a lot to do with education etc at the time. While the 'how' may be similar, the 'whom' or 'why' is totally different.

And when you bring up such a contentions 'what', it is pretty hard to look beyond that.

(11-14-2022 09:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 01:00 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(11-04-2022 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-04-2022 03:09 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(11-02-2022 10:05 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you can't follow basic instructions to sign and date the envelope, should you be voting? How many chances does one get? Two, three or five? How many do overs?

The reading level is middle schoolish. If that is too tough for you, best sit this out.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Whether Republican or Democrat if you're too stupid to know how to fill out a ballot you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'd go one further and say everybody must pass some kind of basic civics exam to have the privilege. Again, that should apply to BOTH sides.

And people get upset when I bring up how well yall would fit in the Jim Crow south...... half of yall explicitly ask *for* the literal exact same things employed by them during that time..... and state explicitly why you are for those actions in a manner that is a picture perfect copy of *why* they are explicitly excluded in the Voting Rights Act.

But yet get maddy poo when the comparison is made to Jim Crow actions and rationales.

In fing amazing.... lolz....

What's it got to do with race? My idea would disqualify millions of American White Trash as well.

This.

Jim Crow was about taking the vote away from black people. That was the 'what'. HOW they did that had a lot to do with education etc at the time. While the 'how' may be similar, the 'whom' or 'why' is totally different.

And when you bring up such a contentions 'what', it is pretty hard to look beyond that.

The issue isnt 'race' -- you are correct. The VRA isnt set out to simply 'protect racial injustice'. Some parts of the VRA do do that. Note the word 'some'.

The main thrust of the VRA is keep prohibitions against the stifling of a fundamental right. Regardless of race.

Do you think the VRA is only a race-based act that seeks to stifle prohibitions or suppression of *only* race based votes? If so, you have an incorrect view of it.

The VRA is drafted to, in part, protect race based suppression., It is drafted overall to stifle all suppression of a fundamental right, across the board. Regardless of what you fixate on now.

The method that PA uses suppresses votes overall in the exact same methodology that the Jim Crow south suppressed them in a targeted manner. In particular and in practice, the date thing tends to suppress more Democratic votes than Republican, if you feel the overriding urgency to require a specific aggrieved group. And if you dont wish to acknowledge that the real aggrieved group is *anyone* that has their votes not counted overall.

The same methodology is used. To negate a fundamental right. If you think a specific group is needed to complete that, you simply dont understand the VRA, and not much I can do about that.

You explicitly equate the 'what' to 'taking away a right from a targeted group.' That is both discrimination and violation of a fundamental right. The larger 'what' is simply the violation of a fundamental right, which you seemingly think is inconsequential, I assume. The 'how' in each case is the exact same method or style of method.

(11-14-2022 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue isnt 'race' -- you are correct. The VRA isnt set out to simply 'protect racial injustice'. Some parts of the VRA do do that. Note the word 'some'.

The main thrust of the VRA is keep prohibitions against the stifling of a fundamental right. Regardless of race.

Do you think the VRA is only a race-based act that seeks to stifle prohibitions or suppression of *only* race based votes? If so, you have an incorrect view of it.

The VRA is drafted to, in part, protect race based suppression., It is drafted overall to stifle all suppression of a fundamental right, across the board. Regardless of what you fixate on now.

The method that PA uses suppresses votes overall in the exact same methodology that the Jim Crow south suppressed them in a targeted manner. In particular and in practice, the date thing tends to suppress more Democratic votes than Republican, if you feel the overriding urgency to require a specific aggrieved group. And if you dont wish to acknowledge that the real aggrieved group is *anyone* that has their votes not counted overall.

The same methodology is used. To negate a fundamental right. If you think a specific group is needed to complete that, you simply dont understand the VRA, and not much I can do about that.

You explicitly equate the 'what' to 'taking away a right from a targeted group.' That is both discrimination and violation of a fundamental right. The larger 'what' is simply the violation of a fundamental right, which you seemingly think is inconsequential, I assume. The 'how' in each case is the exact same method or style of method.

But the Voting Rights Act and 'Jim Crow' are not the same thing.

You keep saying 'this is like Jim Crow South' and then referring to the VRA. I understand the VRA was in large part in response to Jim Crow in terms of timing, but it addressed numerous things far in excess (and obviously far in excess in time and situation as well)
It's a bit like the ACLUs position on felons and voting... Is someone who is against it trying to push us back to the Jim Crow south?

(11-14-2022 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue isnt 'race' -- you are correct. The VRA isnt set out to simply 'protect racial injustice'. Some parts of the VRA do do that. Note the word 'some'.

The main thrust of the VRA is keep prohibitions against the stifling of a fundamental right. Regardless of race.

Do you think the VRA is only a race-based act that seeks to stifle prohibitions or suppression of *only* race based votes? If so, you have an incorrect view of it.

The VRA is drafted to, in part, protect race based suppression., It is drafted overall to stifle all suppression of a fundamental right, across the board. Regardless of what you fixate on now.

The method that PA uses suppresses votes overall in the exact same methodology that the Jim Crow south suppressed them in a targeted manner. In particular and in practice, the date thing tends to suppress more Democratic votes than Republican, if you feel the overriding urgency to require a specific aggrieved group. And if you dont wish to acknowledge that the real aggrieved group is *anyone* that has their votes not counted overall.

The same methodology is used. To negate a fundamental right. If you think a specific group is needed to complete that, you simply dont understand the VRA, and not much I can do about that.

You explicitly equate the 'what' to 'taking away a right from a targeted group.' That is both discrimination and violation of a fundamental right. The larger 'what' is simply the violation of a fundamental right, which you seemingly think is inconsequential, I assume. The 'how' in each case is the exact same method or style of method.

But the Voting Rights Act and 'Jim Crow' are not the same thing.

VRA was propelled into law because of Jim Crow, and extends the concept not jsut to 'violation with discrimination' but the more general concept of policing the vioaltion of a fundamental right overall.

Quote:You keep saying 'this is like Jim Crow South' and then referring to the VRA.

The method employed by PA is the same method employed by Jim Crow. There is a reason why it is prohibited -- and it is not dependent upon discrimination.

The employment of that method, and strictly the method of employment of that method, is very much on the terms of the employment of very similar methods in the Jim Crow south.

I dont understand why for some there is this huge defense of the method in PA, and then this frantic effort to disavow the comparison of the use of the exact same methodology in the Jim Crow south.

Apparently, the use of the method to broadly and generally wipe out valid votes is copacetic and defendable, when the use of the same method to wipe out valid votes based on racial characteristics is a horrible thing? Seriously?

The fact that a state is wiping out valid votes by the method, no matter the justification or lack thereof is the very wrong action to me. The discriminatory intent is just an added bad cherry on top to the wiping out a fundamental right in my book.

The practice of putting in a non-material bar to a vote is a fundamental wrong act in and of itself. That is any vote. Not just one aimed at keeping the dark-skinned person out.

(11-14-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue isnt 'race' -- you are correct. The VRA isnt set out to simply 'protect racial injustice'. Some parts of the VRA do do that. Note the word 'some'.

The main thrust of the VRA is keep prohibitions against the stifling of a fundamental right. Regardless of race.

Do you think the VRA is only a race-based act that seeks to stifle prohibitions or suppression of *only* race based votes? If so, you have an incorrect view of it.

The VRA is drafted to, in part, protect race based suppression., It is drafted overall to stifle all suppression of a fundamental right, across the board. Regardless of what you fixate on now.

The method that PA uses suppresses votes overall in the exact same methodology that the Jim Crow south suppressed them in a targeted manner. In particular and in practice, the date thing tends to suppress more Democratic votes than Republican, if you feel the overriding urgency to require a specific aggrieved group. And if you dont wish to acknowledge that the real aggrieved group is *anyone* that has their votes not counted overall.

The same methodology is used. To negate a fundamental right. If you think a specific group is needed to complete that, you simply dont understand the VRA, and not much I can do about that.

You explicitly equate the 'what' to 'taking away a right from a targeted group.' That is both discrimination and violation of a fundamental right. The larger 'what' is simply the violation of a fundamental right, which you seemingly think is inconsequential, I assume. The 'how' in each case is the exact same method or style of method.

But the Voting Rights Act and 'Jim Crow' are not the same thing.

VRA was propelled into law because of Jim Crow, and extends the concept not jsut to 'violation with discrimination' but the more general concept of policing the vioaltion of a fundamental right overall.

Quote:You keep saying 'this is like Jim Crow South' and then referring to the VRA.

The method employed by PA is the same method employed by Jim Crow. There is a reason why it is prohibited -- and it is not dependent upon discrimination.

The employment of that method, and strictly the method of employment of that method, is very much on the terms of the employment of very similar methods in the Jim Crow south.

I dont understand why for some there is this huge defense of the method in PA, and then this frantic effort to disavow the comparison of the use of the exact same methodology in the Jim Crow south.

Apparently, the use of the method to broadly and generally wipe out valid votes is copacetic and defendable, when the use of the same method to wipe out valid votes based on racial characteristics is a horrible thing? Seriously?

The fact that a state is wiping out valid votes by the method, no matter the justification or lack thereof is the very wrong action to me. The discriminatory intent is just an added bad cherry on top to the wiping out a fundamental right in my book.

The practice of putting in a non-material bar to a vote is a fundamental wrong act in and of itself. That is any vote. Not just one aimed at keeping the dark-skinned person out.

Wow... We're literally saying the same thing and obviously not understanding each other.

No, the VRA was not SOLELY for race based issues... Neither is what is going on in PA. PA may be about discriminating against a party, but that is not a protected group. Discrimination against party happens all day every day it seems.... and the VRA absolutely should apply to that.

When MLK spoke about equality, he certainly didn't just mean for black people... he said so... but clearly when people speak of MLK, the image of a disenfranchised native American isn't what comes to mind. Similarly, when someone speaks about Jim Crow, the imagery isn't a white Democrat.

Your entire case could have been made without ever mentioning a comparison to Jim Crow... only to the VRA, which as you note... addressed violations of someone's right to vote WITHOUT REGARD to race. Jim Crow was all but entirely about violating the voting rights of black people.

THAT is what my push back is about... comparing the actions of actors to those of racists when there is no evidence that race plays a factor whatsoever. They're happy to have black votes for Republican and will turn away white votes for Democrats.

(11-14-2022 01:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2022 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue isnt 'race' -- you are correct. The VRA isnt set out to simply 'protect racial injustice'. Some parts of the VRA do do that. Note the word 'some'.

The main thrust of the VRA is keep prohibitions against the stifling of a fundamental right. Regardless of race.

Do you think the VRA is only a race-based act that seeks to stifle prohibitions or suppression of *only* race based votes? If so, you have an incorrect view of it.

The VRA is drafted to, in part, protect race based suppression., It is drafted overall to stifle all suppression of a fundamental right, across the board. Regardless of what you fixate on now.

The method that PA uses suppresses votes overall in the exact same methodology that the Jim Crow south suppressed them in a targeted manner. In particular and in practice, the date thing tends to suppress more Democratic votes than Republican, if you feel the overriding urgency to require a specific aggrieved group. And if you dont wish to acknowledge that the real aggrieved group is *anyone* that has their votes not counted overall.

The same methodology is used. To negate a fundamental right. If you think a specific group is needed to complete that, you simply dont understand the VRA, and not much I can do about that.

You explicitly equate the 'what' to 'taking away a right from a targeted group.' That is both discrimination and violation of a fundamental right. The larger 'what' is simply the violation of a fundamental right, which you seemingly think is inconsequential, I assume. The 'how' in each case is the exact same method or style of method.

But the Voting Rights Act and 'Jim Crow' are not the same thing.

VRA was propelled into law because of Jim Crow, and extends the concept not jsut to 'violation with discrimination' but the more general concept of policing the vioaltion of a fundamental right overall.

Quote:You keep saying 'this is like Jim Crow South' and then referring to the VRA.

The method employed by PA is the same method employed by Jim Crow. There is a reason why it is prohibited -- and it is not dependent upon discrimination.

The employment of that method, and strictly the method of employment of that method, is very much on the terms of the employment of very similar methods in the Jim Crow south.

I dont understand why for some there is this huge defense of the method in PA, and then this frantic effort to disavow the comparison of the use of the exact same methodology in the Jim Crow south.

Apparently, the use of the method to broadly and generally wipe out valid votes is copacetic and defendable, when the use of the same method to wipe out valid votes based on racial characteristics is a horrible thing? Seriously?

The fact that a state is wiping out valid votes by the method, no matter the justification or lack thereof is the very wrong action to me. The discriminatory intent is just an added bad cherry on top to the wiping out a fundamental right in my book.

The practice of putting in a non-material bar to a vote is a fundamental wrong act in and of itself. That is any vote. Not just one aimed at keeping the dark-skinned person out.

Wow... We're literally saying the same thing and obviously not understanding each other.

No, the VRA was not SOLELY for race based issues... Neither is what is going on in PA. PA may be about discriminating against a party, but that is not a protected group. Discrimination against party happens all day every day it seems.... and the VRA absolutely should apply to that.

When MLK spoke about equality, he certainly didn't just mean for black people... he said so... but clearly when people speak of MLK, the image of a disenfranchised native American isn't what comes to mind. Similarly, when someone speaks about Jim Crow, the imagery isn't a white Democrat.

Your entire case could have been made without ever mentioning a comparison to Jim Crow... only to the VRA, which as you note... addressed violations of someone's right to vote WITHOUT REGARD to race. Jim Crow was all but entirely about violating the voting rights of black people.

THAT is what my push back is about... comparing the actions of actors to those of racists when there is no evidence that race plays a factor whatsoever. They're happy to have black votes for Republican and will turn away white votes for Democrats.

But the underlying issue in PA is one of excluding certain sets of people over other sets. The entire state of Pennsylvania said 'this is bad, its wrong' -- except the Penn Supreme Court, and even then only in a limited way ('lets segregate the excluded votes'.) In response to a Republican challenge to enforce it strictly.

A state action to wrongfully exclude votes is pretty bad. In Penn, it is a *Republican* move to do so -- with an obvious impetus to get rid of more of their opponents votes than theirs.

The Rs there are employing the stance to kick out votes, with a discriminatory intent to do so. That is seemingly a-ok with you and others.

The simple fact that they would try and nix votes in this manner doesnt speak well of Rs. Everyone talks how horrible the Ds employ 'win at all costs' -- here you have a Repub effort to literally deny votes for their benefit.

So yes, in this case the Rs are equivalent to Jim Crow -- they are trying to use a non-material delineation in voting procedure to deny the vote, and with political discriminatory intent. The only difference between that and Jim Crow is replace the word 'political' with 'racial'. I find that act from the Penn Rs to be insipid -- trying to use a non-material aspect of a voting procedure to kick out the fundamental right of a person to vote, for a political discriminatory purpose.

I think the comparison to Jim Crow to be apt in that respect.

Denying a fundamental right with a discriminatory purpose has zero bearing on whether the object of discrimination is a 'protected group' or not. You are mixing and matching concepts. You think it is a fundamental difference. I fail to see that.

I think a denial of 2nd amendment rights to a group if their last name starts with the letters A-L is just as bad as a denial of gun ownership because they are of Chinese heritage. They both discriminate against groups, and the status of one group as a protected class and one is not has zero import into the fundamental fact that the act is a discriminatory denial of a fundamental right to a group.

(11-14-2022 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [

But the underlying issue in PA is one of excluding certain sets of people over other sets. The entire state of Pennsylvania said 'this is bad, its wrong' -- except the Penn Supreme Court, and even then only in a limited way ('lets segregate the excluded votes'.) In response to a Republican challenge to enforce it strictly.

A state action to wrongfully exclude votes is pretty bad. In Penn, it is a *Republican* move to do so -- with an obvious impetus to get rid of more of their opponents votes than theirs.

Move to California and see what happens out there, especially when it comes to water or property rights and high speed rail. My point being, this is not new... it is just 'next'.

Quote:The Rs there are employing the stance to kick out votes, with a discriminatory intent to do so. That is seemingly a-ok with you and others.

Nope... not at all and I've repeatedly said so. It violates the VRA. I just find the comparison to a racist act to be unnecessarily bombastic

Quote:The simple fact that they would try and nix votes in this manner doesnt speak well of Rs. Everyone talks how horrible the Ds employ 'win at all costs' -- here you have a Repub effort to literally deny votes for their benefit.

How is this any different from so many other examples?? I don't follow how 'unique' you think this is/was. At worst, they're hypocrits... at best, they're fighting fire with fire. Laws exist to address this. Adjudicate them. States are fairly often told 'no' by higher courts.

Quote:So yes, in this case the Rs are equivalent to Jim Crow -- they are trying to use a non-material delineation in voting procedure to deny the vote, and with political discriminatory intent. The only difference between that and Jim Crow is replace the word 'political' with 'racial'.

That's a pretty big difference. In the simplest example, replace that word and its a hate crime. I don't understand why you're so intent on the racial comparison, when saying it violates the VRA is so much simpler.

Quote:I find that act from the Penn Rs to be insipid -- trying to use a non-material aspect of a voting procedure to kick out the fundamental right of a person to vote, for a political discriminatory purpose.

I'm not really drawing a value judgement on this. You seem to think I am.

Quote:I think the comparison to Jim Crow to be apt in that respect.

And I disagree for the very reason you note... there is no RACIAL component at play.... and everyone associates Jim Crow with racism. What you've described to me is no different than perhaps thousands of cases of gerrymandering over the decades...

Quote:Denying a fundamental right with a discriminatory purpose has zero bearing on whether the object of discrimination is a 'protected group' or not. You are mixing and matching concepts. You think it is a fundamental difference. I fail to see that.

You've said this a few times now... did I miss something again?? Please tell me how denying a right to vote to someone who fails to follow the rules for that vote is inherently discriminatory... or how having a rule that you date your signature discriminates? I get that it has been ruled to accomplish no significant purpose, but I seriously doubt that it was put in there for the purpose of denying democrats. As i've said, if your argument is that 'failing to know the date' is a random walk and thus would harm democrats more... I would reply that especially for mail-in, failing to know your date is a 'senior' walk... which skews conservative.

Your argument seems to be that historically, more democrats vote by mail... but so what? That's like saying that we should allow people to vote in person without registering because to deny that fundamental right would be to discriminate against Republicans because they vote more 'in person'. I'm sorry I can't come up with a better comparison, but I don't buy the initial concept... that dems are more likely to miss the date than reps, simply because more of them vote by mail.

Quote:I think a denial of 2nd amendment rights to a group if their last name starts with the letters A-L is just as bad as a denial of gun ownership because they are of Chinese heritage. They both discriminate against groups, and the status of one group as a protected class and one is not has zero import into the fundamental fact that the act is a discriminatory denial of a fundamental right to a group.

Except that isn't what would happen... the A-L ban. What would more likely happen is that people would vote for laws that made sense to them... and for someone in NYC or LA, having a gun capable of putting down a bear at 200 yards in one shot or hitting a pack of wolves at 50 yards with consistentcy and stopping power wouldn't make sense... but putting down a lone invader in a narrow apartment or home hallway would, so long as the bullet couldn't go through the sheetrock walls. A law banning high caliber weapons would therefore also arguably be discriminatory, based on geography/proximity.... but that's not a protected class so it could happen

I understand you'd like to believe that a court would ultimately strike down ANY such law, but I think you'd be wrong in that belief. THIS court might not, but one that Joe Biden and company might put in place absolutely would.

(11-14-2022 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:I think a denial of 2nd amendment rights to a group if their last name starts with the letters A-L is just as bad as a denial of gun ownership because they are of Chinese heritage. They both discriminate against groups, and the status of one group as a protected class and one is not has zero import into the fundamental fact that the act is a discriminatory denial of a fundamental right to a group.

Except that isn't what would happen... the A-L ban. What would more likely happen is that people would vote for laws that made sense to them... and for someone in NYC or LA, having a gun capable of putting down a bear at 200 yards in one shot or hitting a pack of wolves at 50 yards with consistentcy and stopping power wouldn't make sense... but putting down a lone invader in a narrow apartment or home hallway would, so long as the bullet couldn't go through the sheetrock walls. A law banning high caliber weapons would therefore also arguably be discriminatory, based on geography/proximity.... but that's not a protected class so it could happen

I understand you'd like to believe that a court would ultimately strike down ANY such law, but I think you'd be wrong in that belief. THIS court might not, but one that Joe Biden and company might put in place absolutely would.

Ham, you went off about the interconnected and to you fundamental core that the difference was 'a protected group'. Im not saying an 'A-L' ban is what would happen -- I am making a fundamentally non-protected group as an example.

Instead, you change it to something else. You have moved the goalposts.

Your comments before tied the actions of denying the fundamental right of voting *to* the existence of the Jim Crow being directed at 'protected groups'. That was your distinction and the issue of importance.

I am taking *your* thesis and examining the converse -- the application to a non-protected group being discriminated against. Not a functional discrimination on the operating chaarcteristics of shells or firearms.

The issue that you brought up was that the comparison of the Pennsylvania action to Jim Crow. You specifically tied that to a requirement that a protected group had to be involved.

That is balderdash.

My comment above is the comparison of the denial of a different, yet as important, fundamental right with and without the presence of a 'protected group' as you seemingly think is the crux of importance.

Now you take that very simple translation of protected class and try to mangle it into another issue entirely.

Please stick with the 1:1 issue I present above, not retransform it.

Again, you have repeatedly and consistently said that the issue is not the denial of a fundamental right, but the denial of fundamental right to a protected class.

I have demonstrated a hypothetical of another fundamental right being denied based on the issue of a non-protected class, and that same right being denied based on the issue of a protected class. Your choice is to to mangle the issue and ignore that.

No -- the issue of denying a vote to a black, because they are black is not fundamentally different for denying a vote to a mail voter for a non-material reason. The issues are the same -- denying a fundamental right, no matter what the group classification they may occupy.

There is no fundamental difference between denying a black the ability to vote because of race and denying *anyone* who is some non-germane and non-material classification the ability to vote because of that non-germane and non-material classification.

There is a difference in how the courts approach the two acts of discrimination, but it is dependent on the act and the group.

If the act discriminates a protected class *or* impacts a fundamental right, the court uses one of two forms of heightened scrutiny. Regardless of the classification. Black, white, last name starts with 'L', bowlegged people, fat people... Whether a protected class or not has almost zero to do with the analysis of a denial of that right.

If the discriminatory act does not impact a fundamental right, the court then looks to whether there is a protected class at issue. If it is a protected class, that invokes a heightened level of scrutiny. If not, a lower.

Voting *is* a fundamental right. Your invocation of the concept of a protected class has nothing to do with an issue that deals with a denial of that fundamental right. Your argument that it has to involve a racial classification is just wrong.