In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main,
a POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries,
sometimes without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.

For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state
requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which
would have made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court
said a state may impose almost any requirement on voters that it
deems proper (i.e., requiring voters to wear some sort of
red-colored clothing, approach the polling place on unicycles, or
whatever).

so it's your theory that shutting down early voting in democratic
counties while leaving them open in republican counties in no way
infringes on a voters rights?

No, I didn't say or mean that. The courts have held that a state may impose
just about any condition on voting it chooses so long as the condition is
uniform. In your example, shutting down the polls early happens every four
years in a little town in Maine where every registered voter in the ENTIRE
town votes shortly after midnight on election day. I think there are
something like eleven people in the whole burg!

In the case I cited, the conditions were not uniform, so I wondered why a repub
sec of state in a state with a repub legislature didn't find the SoS to be in
violation of his duties and immediately remove him from office or at least cite
him for violating the civil rights of those fine citizens in the democratic
counties





of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering
with that act is surely constitutional

Exactly.