The first answer to "why didn't you address the 24th" is that the Plaintiffs themselves didn't.

The authors don't mention having reviewed the Second Amended Complaint that was filed in the District Court. I did. It's available here: <link>

It raises claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and then some statutory claims. In the midst of the 14th Amendment portion of the Complaint, it says that the burden imposed by the ID law is "akin to a poll tax."

But if I file a negligence case against a drunk driver and argue that the Defendant's activities were "akin to an assault" or "akin to murder," that's not enough to actually raise a claim for assault or murder.

You could look on the page I've linked and find all of the briefs filed at every level by the Plaintiffs. I'd venture to say they never actually argued that this law is a poll tax and never actually argued that the 24th Amendment actually should have been applied.

The modern Supreme Court only reaches out and makes or considers arguments not raised and preserved by the parties when it suits a right-wing ideological agenda to do so. This of course is not such a time.

The second answer is that the Supreme Court most certainly did address the argument that the ID law should be subjected to the same high standard applied to poll taxes. The lead opinion rejects that argument on the ground that the ID requirement is rationally related to the voter's qualification to vote (i.e., reliably establishing residency and identity). Having enough money to pay a poll tax is not rationally related to the voter's qualification to vote. Harman says only that if you have a poll tax, and the only exception is to prove your residency, the exception is too burdensome to save the tax.

Harman does not say that no burden can be placed on the right to vote.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the true answer to the question "when is something akin enough to a poll tax that the strict prohibition contained in the 24th Amendment will be applied to it?" The answer is, "a prerequisite for voting will be subjected to the rule of the 24th Amendment when the requirement is not rationally related to the voter's qualification to vote."

Harman, which you chide the Court for ignoring, is a 24th Amendment case. This one isn't.

So much for your two-page article.

Hello, the state argues that its more than rationally related, citing problems of voter fraud.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with your argument before, as mentioned in the article. The "rationally related" argument seems okay on its face, but you can see how states might figure out "rationally related" criteria, such as literacy tests, sanity examinations, English language proficiency, etc. that might stand a chance with this Court. I wouldn't trust this Court to draw the fine, bright line between rationally related and rationally unrelated.

juice123:

Hello, the state argues that its more than rationally related, citing problems of voter fraud.

Yes. You'll no doubt note that I pointed this out (referring to reliably establishing residency and identity).

Well, Harman disagreed only in the sense that it held that proof of residency is too much of a burden to impose on a voter as the sole way to avoid paying a poll tax. As a matter of jurisprudence, Harman just doesn't speak to whether proof of residency per se is too much of a burden as the sole way to vote. And the Supreme Court here said it would not extend it and explained why, albeit without actually naming the case to which it was referring.

You are quite right to point out that the standard of "rational relationship" is just a kite in the political breeze. If the speed limit on the highway on which I drive home were "drive at a speed that is rationally related to all of the relevant circumstances," I'd be writing this from prison.

I hope you understand I was "defending" the Supreme Court against the accusation that it just ignored an entire branch of its own jurisprudence. That accusation was false.

I was not defending the Supreme Court's decision as correct or impartial or even logical.

After all, I'm one of them damned libs.

Arlington wrote "but you can see how states might figure out "rationally related" criteria, such as literacy tests, sanity examinations, English language proficiency, etc. that might stand a chance with this Court."

Except that not everyone in America is allowed to vote: non citizens, 16 year olds, convicted felons currently serving their punishment, those determined by the court to be non-competent to handle their own affairs (ward of the state or a non state custodian) and those that have not registered to vote. Requiring a picture ID to prove that you are the person you claim to be is directly related to your voting right. The bugaboos that you scare us with are not directly related to that right.

When I started voting we always showed a picture ID to prove we where the person on the poll list. If this had continued then the case of the candidate for the house in my district who’s supporters registered as many illegals as they could knowing they would vote for her, they admitted this, would have been totally ineffective. They wouldn't have had a proper ID to vote with. In my case the burden seems minimal. In Cal. a copy of your birth certificate costs about $10 and the ID is free. By the way you need that same BC to get a copy of your SS card. Hardly a burden to have to spend $10 once during your life to be able to vote and hardly a tax as it is something that most already have and those who don't will eventually need it for a non-voting purpose.