• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    IANAL but in my reading of the text of the bill the only way for a married woman that took her partner’s last name (that wasn’t in the military with her married name) to be able to vote if this becomes law is for them to spend at least $30 to get a USA Passport card. This would tick all the boxes the bill requires for these women:

    • Government ID
    • Shows citizenship status (by nature of it being a Passport)
    • Shows place of birth
    • Shows the married last name

    …or as I’m calling it:

    This is violation of the 24th Amendment banning poll Taxes.

    In this case, its a required fee married women must pay to be able to use their Constitutional guaranteed right to vote granted by the 19th Amendment. How is this not a poll tax by another name on married women?

    • thedruid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      here’s the issue.

      There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right. Since people with no knowledge about the subject made sure to make it as expensive as possible to enjoy a right, the psychopaths in office now have precedent.

      one cannot tax one right and hand wave another. So . which do you think will fall first?

      • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        one cannot tax one right and hand wave another

        Clearly you’re wrong because ones been being taxed and the other hasn’t. There’s a direct ban on poll taxes in the constitution, there is no such things for guns