Harvard Law School's news site covers legal scholarship, Supreme Court cases, surveillance, and technology law.
HN links it for legal analysis, such as research on voter ID costs, the major questions doctrine, and an interview with Bruce Schneier.
> Hasn't this already been true for years?
No, not every law has provisions for free IDs and even when "free" IDs are offered it still costs people money
https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf
> Is there any voter ID requirement, or even a proposal for one, that doesn't accept drivers' licenses?
Millions of Americans don't have a drivers license or any form of government issued ID
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
This is pretty common in elderly and disabled people who can no longer drive. They often see no reason to keep renewing a state ID. If we had a national ID card that every citizen was required to have from the time they were children until the day that they died it wouldn't as big an issue, but that's not the case. Groups that help support the elderly and disabled have been dealing with the problem for many years.
see also:
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html
> You can get that at 16, and most people get it well before 18, the minimum voting age.
Most people can get an ID, but doing that might be extremely difficult. It's getting better as local governments increasingly move services online but historically the US hasn't been so great about record keeping or making the needed documents easy to get. The first time I had to get a state ID I first had to travel across the country to the…
I feel like people don't actually realize what the consequences of this will really be.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/scotus-preview-west-virginia-v-epa/
> “Supporters of the major questions doctrine would characterize this as taking power away from agencies and giving it to Congress, because they would say Congress is democratically accountable, and therefore should be making the major policy decisions,” says Goho. “Critics would say, ‘No, what’s happening is you’re taking power away from agencies, which have some degree of democratic accountability to the president, and you are actually granting the power to the courts, which are not democratically accountable at all.’”
This is the first step in dismantling regulatory bodies on a federal level. I have no idea how people can be supportive of the decision. It seems insane to me.
> So again I do not find this law, that is actually on the books to be burdensome
You might consider yourself privileged, then. Because there is extensive research about the costs that are associated with voter id laws[0].
> or are you just reading too many NYTimes stories about the evils of Voter ID
NYT is fine, although not my favorite. I prefer The Intercept.
> Point to any statement I have made that says or even implies that?
It was my impression, that's why I wrote "You seem" instead of "You say [...]" or "You write [...]".
So; what is the problem do you want to solve with voter ids?
[0] https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf
This is amusingly silly. Changing the composition of the Court is not unheard of and FDR, not exactly known as the poster child of "destroying the legitimacy of Constitutional government," nearly did it in 1937 (and likely would have if not for another untimely death.) https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-should-they-pack-the-supreme-court/
https://today.law.harvard.edu/internet-privacy-afraid/
SCHNEIER: I use an encrypted chat application like Signal. By and large, email security is out of our control