This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a major ruling striking down South Carolina’s limits on absentee ballots. The relatively novel basis of this opinion (by Judges Roger Gregory, Judge Pamela Harris, and Judge Julius Richardson) was that it violated the 26th Amendment as discrimination on the basis of age for voters. The opinion conflicts with rulings in other circuits and, in my view, is challengeable.
The case of Grant v. Belangia came to the Fourth Circuit after District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks issued a ruling in favor of the state, dismissing the challenge to the South Carolina law.
Writing for the panel, Judge Gregory (right) reverses on the 26th Amendment (while upholding the earlier rejection under the Equal Protection Clause).
Under Section 7-15-320 of the South Carolina Code, four categories of “[q]ualified electors” are allowed to vote absentee in an election: electors who are physically disabled; members of the Armed Forces and Merchant Marines of the United States, their spouses, and dependents; persons admitted to hospitals as emergency patients on the day of an election or within a four-day period before the election; and “persons sixty-five years of age or older.” S.C. Code § 7-15-320(B).
If you are a younger voter (below the age of 65), you can also vote by an absentee ballot if you meet one of the standard exceptions: conflicting employment obligations; the need to attend to sick or physically disabled persons; confinement to a jail or pretrial facility pending disposition of arrest or trial; or an absence from your county of residence. S.C. Code § 7-15-320(A).
The challenge is based on the argument that the state law allows older persons to vote easily by absentee while imposing an added burden on those who are younger.
This, the Court reasoned, runs afoul of the 26th Amendment, which provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” U.S. Const. amend. XXVI, § 1.
The “no excuse” option for older voters is viewed as abridging the right to vote based on age for younger voters.
I respectfully disagree. While this is a well-written, well-reasoned opinion, I still believe it is wrong. South Carolina does not abridge or reduce the ability to vote for younger voters, who may vote in person and have ample exceptions for voting by absentee ballot.
Accommodations for older voters acknowledge the added physical difficulties in voting due to age. Many older voters remain unencumbered and active, but the state may adopt general categories for greater efficiency and management.
Any younger voter who is disabled has the protections of federal law requiring accommodation for such disabilities in gaining access to voting even if one of the exceptions does not apply. (Frankly, I would have preferred greater express accommodation for such disabled younger voters, but I do not believe that it is constitutionally required so long as the state guarantees access).
The challengers cite many unpredictable occurrences that also impact younger voters. The state insists that such occurrences impact all voters and that it is not required to negate a state preference for in-person voting in light of such occurrences. The panel makes an interesting point in rejecting that claim:
“Defendants further argue that unpredictability affects all voters because voters of any age may face late-breaking conflicts they did not foresee. That is true but beside the point. The Constitution does not require South Carolina to eliminate life’s contingencies, but it does forbid South Carolina from allocating the consequences of those contingencies on unequal terms based on age as they relate to voting access. Under this scheme, when life circumstances change after the statutory deadline, absentee-by-mail voting functions as a form of insurance for voters age sixty-five and older against unforeseen contingencies that might otherwise prevent their participation, while younger voters remain exposed to the risk that such contingencies will preclude them from voting. S.C. Code §§ 7-15- 320(B)(2); 7-15-330(C), (D). This contravenes the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.”
The panel also rejects the administrability and election integrity arguments of the state:
“Those are legitimate interests. But the Twenty-Sixth Amendment unconditionally removes age-based allocation of voting opportunity from the set of permissible means without consideration of the state’s interests. A state may pursue those interests lawfully— through age-neutral rules, or by limiting absentee-by-mail voting altogether. What it may not do is grant one class of adult citizens unconditional access to a voting method while denying it to another solely because of age.”
Courts such as the Fifth Circuit have rejected such challenges, noting that when the 26th Amendment was ratified, most voting was done in person, with few exceptions for absentee voting. In Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020), found that allowing older persons to vote absentee as a group did not negate or interfere with younger people’s right to vote. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the right to vote under the 26th Amendment is only abridged when a statute removes a voting privilege previously enjoyed by a voter. That is not the case with absentee voting.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit relied on Second Amendment cases in reaching this conclusion, viewing the meaning of the terms of the amendment in light of how they were understood at the time of ratification: “That meaning is the context for the use of the phrase, and with ‘textual interpretation, context is everything.’”
It found that the bar on abridgment of the right cannot prevent different accommodations for different groups:
“Conceptually, plaintiffs are converting the Twenty-Sixth Amendment into the positive assertion that voting rights must be identical for all age groups at all times. Any indulgence solely for one age group of voters would fail; voters of all ages must get the same indulgence.15 The Amendment, though, is a prohibition against adopting rules based on age that deny or abridge the rights voters already have. Indeed, neither the Twenty-Sixth Amendment nor the related amendments we have been discussing are written in terms of granting a positive right to vote. Instead, they each are phrased in the negative, namely, that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged based on the relevant reason. See David Schultz, Election Law and Democratic Theory 87 (2016). More consistent with the text of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment is for us to evaluate whether younger voters’ rights were reduced by the addition of a privilege for older voters.”
The Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in Tully v. Okeson, 78 F.4th 377, 383 (7th Cir. 2023).
Once again, I found the Fourth Circuit opinion compelling at points, but ultimately unconvincing. While people of good faith can disagree on what constitutes an abridgment of the right to vote, I believe the Fourth Circuit’s approach sweeps too broadly, making it difficult for states to make accommodations and differentiations in the mechanics or administration of voting.
The case is likely to raise concerns with a number of justices and could well find itself on the Supreme Court docket.
Here is the decision: https://ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251413.P.pdf
“. . . the state law allows older persons to vote easily by absentee while imposing an added burden on those who are younger.” (JT)
The Fourth is also wrong on that point.
If anything, allowing seniors to vote by mail *lessens* the burden on others. The lines are shorter.
Sam, the problem is not the ability. It’s the equal application of the right. If seniors are allowed to vote by mail because they are seniors. Younger voters should be allowed to vote by mail as well because the 26th amendment specifically says,
“ The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
It’s pretty straight forward.
If those 65 or older are allowed the privilege of voting by mail. Then the younger ones’s right is abridged because they can’t vote by mail too. There’s literally no reason why is should only be available only to those 65 and older. If it is perfectly legal for them it should be perfectly legal for younger voters.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
I wondered the same thing. Does the Fourth’s decision contradict VAEHA?
“The right…shall not be denied or abridged” is a long way from saying, “everyone shall have the same privileges or accommodations.” Here in Texas there are accommodations for people who have difficulty in getting to the polls—special bus service and active volunteers. Is everyone entitled to a free ride? With both rights and privileges, prudent law provides for a limiting principle.
I think Prof Turley is exactly right, and the fourth circuit is wrong. No right is being denied or abridged here. There is no right to vote by mail. Voting by mail is a privilege, which is extended to certain people and not others. The 26th amendment doesn’t require all privileges to be granted equally. It doesn’t deal with privileges at all, but only with rights. States don’t have to create a right to vote, but if they do create one then they can’t deny it to 18-year-olds on the basis of their age.
As the Court holds, “South Carolina’s age-based absentee-by-mail rules plainly fail to pass muster. As Defendants themselves recognize, having the option to cast an absentee-by-mail ballot increases the convenience and ease of voting. That means voting is harder for voters under age sixty-five than those age sixty-five and older—which constitutes an abridgement of the right to vote on the basis of age and contravenes the Twenty-Sixth Amendment…”
“We do not doubt that South Carolina retains “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised,” but, as McDonald makes clear, once the state makes absentee-by-mail voting available, it may not allocate access to
it in a manner forbidden by the Constitution. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Twenty-Sixth Amendment now prohibits age-based allocation of voting rights, McDonald’s reasoning confirms—not undermines—that an age-based allocation of voting access is constitutionally suspect.”
Essentially, the Court is treating absentee voting as no different from a law that would allow the State to drive anyone over 65 to the polls to vote or would allow someone to physically vote in place of that person. Most would assume that, absent a physical need, such blanket accommodations would plainly create an age-based – rather than need-based — accommodation. Such accommodations are plainly prohibited by the 26th Amendment.
I don’t think most would assume that, and if they did then I think they would assume wrongly, making an ass out of you and them.
The 4th circuit asserts that giving a privilege to some voters abridges the rights of all other voters. It reads them to ban all discrimnation. But that’s not what the words say, and I don’t think it’s how the words were understood at the time the amendment was adopted. I don’t think it’s what those words mean in the 15th, 19th, and 24th either.
18 will be 65 one day and are included. You might try an argument regarding death. The number 18 year olds who will not enjoy mail ins due to death. An actuarial can help. Make the death argument, X.
/s
Huh? That just makes no sense.
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
Does Joe Biden have the right to vote?
He does note reside in SC.
Only by autopen.
Absentee Ballots, Ballot Harvesting, Voting “day” (now week, month), where has American Common Sense gone, better yet where has the Common Sense American gone?
Failed scrutiny level 1, common sense? 😂
Can I leave it in my will how I intend to vote after I’m dead. I can vote forever.
Yes! If you die on election day and it’s post marked and signed.
‘While people of good faith can disagree on what constitutes an abridgment of the right to vote, I believe the Fourth Circuit’s approach sweeps too broadly and would make it difficult for states to make accommodations and differentiations in the mechanics or administration of voting.’
Likely the point. Let us not forget, it was Pelosi, not the dsa, years ago, pushing to lower the voting age to 16. The coddling and conditioning continues, and it is not leading us anywhere good. Dems can’t win modern elections fairly or honestly, and that’s a fact.
Professor Turley,
Scalia: “I don’t care what the Framers intended. I care what they wrote.”
You are trying to infer the meaning of the Constitutional amendment based on the context around the time it was enacted and use that to override the plain meaning of the text. The text is quite similar – no favoritism for different age groups. If the drafters of the amendment wanted to carve out elderly folks regardless of demonstrated need they should have done so in the text.
Any other interpretation is pure judicial activism in an attempt to stack the decks in favor of the elderly, who we know overwhelmingly support one political party.
Simple*
Furthermore, you supported El Otro Lado based on the argument that plain meaning should override hidden intent… https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-supreme-court-hands-trump-border-victory-liberals-cant-spin.amp
How can you justify the about face here?
There’s nothing hidden here, and no intent. This is about the public meaning of “right to vote” when the 26A was enacted. That phrase did not include a “right” to vote by mail.
Exactly!
“. . . the elderly, who we know *overwhelmingly* support one political party.” (emphasis added)
That’s a lie.
The split is about 48%-45%.
Your use of quotation marks is also a lie.
The plain meaning at the time the 26th Amendment was passed was to let 18 to 20 yo citizens vote.
And the right cannot be abridged for anyone 18 and older. Offering special privileges like allowing mail -voting only to seniors but not younger voters infringes on the rights of the younger voters to vote by mail too. There’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
And the right cannot be abridged for anyone 18 and older.
Indeed it can’t.
Offering special privileges like allowing mail -voting only to seniors but not younger voters infringes on the rights of the younger voters to vote by mail too
They have no such right, they never had one, therefore it is not being infringed or abridged (which are not the same thing; the 26A says “denied or abridged” and does not mention “infringed”).
When discussing the right to vote under the Constitution, one should recognize that much of the power to manage how elections took place was left to the states as long as their actions comply with federal statutes and constitutional law.
All have the right to vote, and the standard method is at the polls. Therefore, the question becomes: can one say the right to vote is taken away by not permitting young voters to vote by mail? They can still vote in the standard fashion. One can delve into the reasons for seniors, and those reasons can be applied to younger voters.
No, that is incorrect:
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
is not the same as:
“The right of the citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied.”
These differences are material:
1. “or abridged” means that it is not simply the right to vote; rather, it covers, any encumbrances on that right.
2. You are reading “on account of age” to be superfluous. This ensures equal access to voting as older adults because it explicitly uses age discrimination language.
It clearly does not allow a State to segregate voting rights to groups of people above 18 based solely on age. Specifically, giving elderly persons special voting rights violates the plain letter of the Constitutional Amendment. If Congress wants to redraft to grant the elderly such special status, then nothing is stopping them from doing so.
This is the same kind of mistaken left-wing thinking that considers a tax cut to be the same as a government handout. Accommodating the less able takes nothing away from the able. And our laws routinely assume that older citizens are less able than younger ones..Otherwise Social Security and Medicare would not exist.
Why do you assume that someone older than 65 is “less able?”
Why should the law? I have no problem accommodating the “less able.” This law, however, is not based on ability.
Only activist judicial interpretations rely on outcome-determinative criteria rather than the actual text of the statute and Constitutional Amendment, in question.
Very simply put, does the accommodation attach to a 65-year able-bodied voter, or not? Answer that question, and you understand why it is unconstitutional.
If the over-65s were as able as the under-65s, then why would the US tax the younger ppl to fund cash payments for the older ppl? Why not just expect everyone to work till they fell over dead?
We are making the same argument with slightly different contexts.
To abridge means to diminish, contract, or devalue. When a state creates a two-tiered system—where one age bracket gets effortless, guaranteed access via the mail and another age bracket is forced to navigate strict physical and scheduling hurdles—the value and ease of the younger group’s right has been structurally abridged.
Your second point targets the core mechanics of anti-discrimination law. Turley reads the 26th Amendment as if it only protects “the right of 18-year-olds to vote.” But as you noted, my inclusion of “on account of age” turns it into an absolute prohibition against age-based sorting among adults. Which I admit is a bit much to apply it as an absolute.
In my view it functions exactly like the 15th (race) and 19th (sex) Amendments. A state cannot say, “We aren’t denying men the right to vote, we are just giving women a special convenience privilege.” The moment a state uses an arbitrary age cutoff (like 65) to distribute voting mechanisms, it is discriminating “on account of age,” which is the exact trigger the text forbids.
Your analysis highlights that the Constitution does not allow states to grade adult citizens on a curve based on their date of birth. If a state chooses to modernize or ease its voting laws, the text of the 26th Amendment requires it to do so age-neutrally. I agree with that view.
When a state creates a two-tiered system—where one age bracket gets effortless, guaranteed access via the mail and another age bracket is forced to navigate strict physical and scheduling hurdles—the value and ease of the younger group’s right has been structurally abridged.
None of that is true. You just made it up.
A state cannot say, “We aren’t denying men the right to vote, we are just giving women a special convenience privilege.”
Says who? What is your authority for that assertion? You just made it up. I see no reason why a state can’t say exactly that.
Your analysis is incorrect. A law means what it meant when it was enacted. Not what those who enacted intended, but what it actually said at that time.
At the time the 26A was enacted there was no “right” to vote by mail. Thus this was not a right that the amendment guarantees to 18-year-olds.
In the 1960’s, an elderly person in good health who simply found it difficult to travel or wait in line was typically required to vote in person.
The only reason this changed is because a politician found a way to cheat using elderly absentee ballots. Let’s face it, this would be the easiest population to prey upon, it’s a ‘no-brainer’ for a corrupt politician to make it happen and share the technique with their party.
Up next, SCOTUS, to resolve the inconsistency between Circuits
The 4th Circuit just decided that the AARP must now become the AAP, the Association of America’ s People.
Stupid comment.
Hullbobby, nope. You’re just being obtuse because you can’t make a concise argument.
No, it didn’t. Where on earth did you get such a stupid idea? Even if the 4th circuit is right, what has the 26th amendment got to do with the AARP?
“The ‘no excuse’ option for older voters is viewed as abridging the right to vote based on age for younger voters.” (JT)
In the context of politics, to “abridge” means to “reduce or lessen” a right. The right, per 26A, is to vote. It is not the “right” to vote by mail.
Here are just some of the special privileges offered to seniors: early airline boarding, senior-only menus at restaurants, retail store discounts, discount passes at national parks, reduced fares on Amtrak, movie theater and hotel discounts.
By the Fourth Circuit’s “reasoning,” those senior-only privileges somehow lessen the right of others to travel by plane and train, eat out, buy clothing, go to parks and movies, and stay at hotels.
Such is the absurdity of playing games with words (“abridge”).
Well stated! Thanks!
Private entities can always provide perks to whoever they want. I buy my mom flowers on Mother’s day but not for you. The perks you mention are just to get tightwad and fixed-income seniors to open their wallets. That’s capitalism but the goverment has no such excuse. It’s just pandering. We expected old people to stand in line, in line with our ‘equal before the law’ motto before the pandering started.
Your ageism is showing with the oxymoronic line “tightwad and fixed-income seniors….” If they (we) are living on fixed-incomes then it seems pretty nasty to call us tightwads. Are 20-somethings tightwads because landlords are trying to egt them to “open their wallets”?
What young uneducated, dim witted young people, like you, don’t grasp is that we older folks know what it is like to be young AND what it is like to be old. You on the other hand only have half of life’s experiences. Many young people are wise enough to keep quiet about things they don’t know, sadly you are not among this group.
Uneducated? Seriously? Your comemnt reeks of uneducated.
Obviously your age in a hindrance to clear thinking and expounding.
^^^Here’s the real youngy that hullbobby pissed off. That’s ageism hullbobby.
Oh that one landed in the 10 ring.
Sorry Hullbobby, I AM in fact one of those tightwad seniors. Many of us are cheap because we grew up with little and know how to make do with it and are even smug about it. And companies do pander to seniors but I always forget to ask for the senior discount. That is how I know it’s a thing. Not all us anons are teenagers.
“Private entities can always provide perks to whoever they want.”
National parks and public transportation are *not* private entities. Care to try, again?
Your malice toward seniors is duly noted.
Look, I AM a senior! I wrote that. in the 60’s old people were expected to show up to vote and they took pride in it too. Americans are getting soft with all this catering. You want you rights or not? use them but I’m tired of ‘groups’ asking for special rights, thats how you end up with the DSA, mail-in voting fraud and abuse of handicapped parking permits. Equal rights is the target people, and less whining. There are lot’s of reasons for companies to provide perks but they are not constitutional rights and I don’t want my government pandering or doling anything out. this is also how we end up with bad cops and LEO bill of super-citizen rights and other fantasies not in the Constitution. Entitlement used to be frowned upon and seen as a sign of poor character.
Sam, it doesn’t matter. Nothing in the 26th amendment prohibits government from denying young people a “right” to discounted entry to national parks, or to discounted public transport. The 26A prohibits denying young people a right TO VOTE and only that right. All other rights are fair game.
IF the 4th circuit is correct that allowing the elderly to vote by mail creates a “right” within the meaning of the 26A, then it is correct to say that that “right” may not be denied to young people because they’re young. But this would not affect any other such “right”, such as discounted public transport.
Even if it were the government providing discounts for the elderly for various things (which it does), how would that implicate the 26th amendment? Even if we were to concede that there is a “right” to a discount for entry to national parks, for instance, and that “right” were being denied to younger people on account of age, so what? Where in the constitution does it say government can’t do that?
Sam, no. It’s about equal application of the right. If the state makes an exception based on age it must allow it for all ages according to the constitution. The 26th amendment makes it clear
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Grant v. Belangia correctly recognizes that while South Carolina is not forced to offer absentee voting to anyone, if it does choose to offer it, it cannot use an arbitrary age cutoff to decide who gets it.
“Abridgment” at the time of the founding and the 1971 ratification meant to shorten, diminish, or deprive someone of equal status.
“ The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
If the state wants to make it easier for those aged 65 or older by allowing mail-in voting, then it must allow it for everyone else. It’s pretty clear when it says ”it SHALL not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of <b<age.
Question: is my right to drive on a highway HOV lane “abridged or denied” because if I am by myself in the vehicle I cannot use the lane legally but someone with a specific type of vehicle (electric) driving alone can ?
So, the wealthy who can afford an expensive electric vehicle can enjoy the benefit for faster travel but I cannot because I cannot afford that vehicle ?
Golfishgrace, you don’t have a constitutional right to drive.
We have a Constitutional right to interstate travel, which assumes a Constitutional right to INTRAstate travel, because few ppl live right on the border.
Driving is just the most widespread means of crossing state lines.
The constitutional right to interstate travel, or to intrastate travel, does NOT include a right to drive a car on a public highway, just as it does not include a right to board a plane. There is no such right, and never was one. That’s why driver licensing is allowed, and why the TSA is allowed.
you do! where does it say the gov can prevent you?
Yes HOV lanes is government social control and anti-freedom. YOU paid for that road so you should be able to use it. You did not pay for that EV you mention.
No, you personally did not pay for the road, any more than you personally paid for anything the government purchases or makes. You have no particular right to any of those things.
Question: is my right to drive on a highway HOV lane “abridged or denied”
Assuming that is a “right”, then yes, it is “abridged or denied”. So what? Where in the constitution does it say that such a “right” (assuming it to exist) may not be abridged or denied?
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
Sam, no. It’s about equal application of the right. If the state makes an exception based on age it must allow it for all ages according to the constitution.
Where you and the 4th circuit are wrong, is that you are treating making an exception as if it creates a right. That is just not so.
By the Fourth Circuit’s “reasoning,” those senior-only privileges somehow lessen the right of others to travel by plane and train, eat out, buy clothing, go to parks and movies, and stay at hotels.
Not that I agree with the 4th circuit, but what are you talking about? Where in the 26th amendment does it prohibit lessening someone’s “right” to do any of those things, let alone to do them at a discount? Have you ever read the 26th amendment? Do you have any idea what it says? If you do, how could you come up with such an argument?
Giving some voters extra privileges based on age is a direct violation of 26A. What would the analysis be if whites were given the ability to vote by mail when blacks were not?
Sally must think that teenagers should be allowed to go on Social Security. Sally must think that 65 year olds must register for the draft. Sally must think we are all as dumb as her.
In your case, a lot dummer, I would say.
MORON ANON
Hullbobby, as usual, you’re going off on pure exaggerations and hyperbole because you don’t understand the issue. Sally had a valid point and instead of directly addressing or rebutting you chose to denigrate and insult. You already lost the argument. So you did what you could, just insult whine.
Hullbobby, what have social security or the draft got to do with the 26th amendment? Have you ever read it? If you think it has any relevance to those things, then I must conclude that you have not.
Younger people, on average, do not need special accommodations to be able to vote. Older people, on average, do. Making it easier for the elderly to vote, eliminates the possibility of prohibited age-based abridgement of voting rights.
Yes, but what has that got to do with social security or the draft? Why does Hullbobby think that the 4th circuit’s decision could possibly affect social security or the draft?
Wait until you get to be that senior age you POS! Wait until you’re dealing with back, hip, knee, and foot ailments at the ripe old age of 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, etc.! Most likely you’ll be the one shooting off her mouth that you can’t stand in a 1, 2, 3 hour line just to cast your vote!! We can only hope that this situation comes back to haunt you!!!
I have never stood in a voting line more than 5 minutes and I live in the crowded NE and I’m old. You need to ask your locality why they don’t have a better voting setup and you need to vote in person for the good of our country. and be more patriotic about it too. Damn your ailments, get a wheelchair, and act like an American! People died for your rights.
When my jurisdiction replaced dimpled chad ballots with electronic voting machines, I waited over a half hour in line to vote, bc the machines were too expensive to buy that many. Ahead of me was my neighbor, and his 80 year old mother.
I’m a poll worker in NYC, and I have personally seen lines that lasted over an hour. We allowed people who have difficulty standing that long to reserve a position in the line and sit until their turn came.
WHY do Americans accept such shoddy accomodations for something as important as voting? THIS isn’t a bar to voting but requiring ID IS? Give me a break. Citizens should demand that the is NO LINE to wait in on election day and governments absolutely can provide it. For all the crying about voting rights, hassle-free in person voting should be at the top of the list not the bottom. BUT the hassle has a purpose; it makes mail-in voting more desirable to voters, not just the cheaters who need it.
No, the government cannot provide it. There is no way to ensure that there is no line whenever you choose to come and vote, any more than there’s a way to ensure there’s no line at the bank or the post office whenever you choose to show up. Each worker can only serve one person at a time.
Make the argument that those under 65 ate no more capable of voting in person than persons OVER 65.
Realize that accommodating the presumed frailties of the elderly prevents THEIR right to vote from being abridged on account of age.
Sally, Giving some voters extra privileges based on age is a direct violation of 26A.
No, it is not. Privileges are not rights.
What would the analysis be if whites were given the ability to vote by mail when blacks were not?
It might violate the 14A, but it would not violate the 15A. The 15A, like the 19A, 24A, and 26A, refers only to rights, not to privileges. The 14A, on the other hand, specifically does refer to “privileges and immunities”.
excellent!
“The challenge is based on the argument that the state law allows older persons to vote easily by absentee while imposing an added burden on those who are younger…”
Just flip this:
In reality, the “burden” is the requirement to vote in person.
Persons over age 65 are simply “relived” of the burden
It doesn’t matter. If a voter is given a “special privilege” because of their age when the 26th amendment makes on such exemption for age the “special privilege” must be applied equally to all.
It’s the same with the 19th amendment. You can’t give “special privileges” to one group because of sex and deny them to another. It’s the whole purpose of applying the law equally.
Trump claims mail-in voting is a means to engage in voter fraud yet… he always votes by mail. So…is he committing voter fraud or does he have this unique special exemption because he’s president. Obama voted in person multiple times.
all or nothing, black or white, is your hallmark view of every subject. Re-read your comment, let’s see if you can find your TDS. Trump is generally and widely known as a US citizen and can prove it, had to prove it to become president. This doesn’t apply to illegals.
Trump doesn’t think every single instance of mail-in is fraud, just that the demorats have seized it as a means to cheat. See Act Blue. See ‘vouching for 8 people’ when you don’t have an ID yourself. THIS is what I refer to when I say you are slipping. Think man, think!
Trump’s government job requires him to be away from home during the week, same as if he were a sailor or Marine.
“Trump claims mail-in voting is a means to engage in voter fraud yet… he always votes by mail. “
He doesn’t always vote by mail. I saw him vote in the Pubic Library polling place in 2020 and voted at other times at the polls. He also agrees with limited mail-in voting based on need. Because Democrats keep trying to kill him, I want him to use a mail-in vote.
[…] the “special privilege” must be applied equally to all. It’s the same with the 19th amendment. You can’t give “special privileges” to one group because of sex and deny them to another.
Says who? Nothing in the 15A, 19A, 24A, or 26A says anything about special privileges. They only deal with rights. What is your source that special privileges in voting may not be given on account of race, sex, taxpayer status, or age over 18? If there is such a prohibition it can only come from the 14A, not from those other amendments.
Trump claims mail-in voting is a means to engage in voter fraud yet… he always votes by mail. So…is he committing voter fraud
Now you’re just being stupid. Yes, mail-in voting IS a means to enable election fraud. It’s not those who use it who are engaging in that fraud! A vote that genuinely came from the person who is purported to have sent it in is undoubtedly a valid vote. But not all postal votes received do come from the voter who’s purported to have sent them. That is the problem. No one is likely to forge a postal vote from Trump! Such a forgery would be discovered very quickly and rejected.
No, it’s about applying the law equally. The 26th amendment does not say exemptions are allowed only to those 65 and older. What the 4th circuit said was if the state chooses to allow absentee voting (mail-in voting) it must also allow it for everyone else. That’s it. If the state does NOT want to allow mail-in voting then it must also apply to those 65 and older regardless of health status or ability to go to the polls. The constitution makes no exceptions.
By making 65 year olds or older an exception because of age but not to those who are younger it infringes on the younger voters rights because it treats them differently based on age. It violates teh 26th amendment.
What the 4th circuit said was if the state chooses to allow absentee voting (mail-in voting) it must also allow it for everyone else. That’s it.
That is what it said, but it’s wrong. The right to vote may not be denied or abridged on the basis of age over 18. Privileges in voting may be.
(And of course any right or privilege that has nothing to do with voting is irrelevant, because the 26A says nothing about it. So all those attacking the decision by referring to other such “rights” are completely off base.)
Your ‘burden’ is an enshrined and closely held RIGHT, not a burden. If it’s a burden, don’t vote, as many choose not too.
what absolute garbage. Their right isn’t being abridged or denied? What if they don’t want to write their name? Or mail the mail?
Maybe if you aren’t party of society, maybe we shouldn’t USE YOUR VOTE!
Not abridge? Can you cite current or historical law confirming that statement?
Abridged MORON ANON
Guyventner, you sure huff and puff a lot over nonsensical whataboutisms.
Perhaps you need proof first. Which seems to be lacking.
The 4th circuit’s (and X’s) position is that if the elderly were allowed to vote without providing their names, or bothering to mail their votes, then younger voters would have to be given the same privilege. Since the elderly are not being given such a privilege, there is no need to give it to younger voters either.
Look, this is not an unreasonable position. I think it’s wrong, and it’s certainly not as obviously correct as X thinks it is, but nor is it obviously wrong. Often judges’ decisions are not just wrong but dishonest. I think Roe v Wade was a dishonest decision; the justices didn’t really believe what they wrote. In this case I don’t think the 4th circuit was dishonest in taking the position it did; I just think the 5th circuit has the better reading.
President Carter was against mail-in ballots
All Voting
1 Day, In person, with ID, Paper Trail
Else the VOTE doesn’t count
I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat
Look up the Carter Baker Commission
Just referencing a nonexistent commission does not make your comment valid.
What do you mean, nonexistent? The Carter-Baker Commission was very real and very public. How can you deny that?
But while it’s true that the commission found that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter
fraud”, it is not true that it recommended abolishing them. It recommended reforms making fraud harder to commit and easier to detect, but not abolishing them altogether. And it noted that “Oregon appears to have avoided significant fraud in its vote-by-mail elections”, so it can be done.
“While there is little evidence of fraud in Oregon, where the entire state votes by mail, absentee balloting in
other states has been one of the major sources of fraud. Even in Oregon, better precautions are needed to ensure that the return of ballots is not intercepted.”
It is interesting that almost every attempt to rein in voter fraud is met by a Judicial Branch that rejects those efforts….I wonder why they did not intervene when in 2020 the states and federal authorities started this mass mail in voting for months.
A funny thing called the Constitution always interferes.
This has nothing to do with voter fraud.
Yes…grasshopper….it does. When states are mailing out random blank ballots, (not requested, nor comparing signatures for validation) then counting more than they mailed out, while usurping state legislation under the guise of ‘covid,’ which were decisions made by election personnel that violated state laws…… That is fraud
This is absolutely 100% about election fraud!!! Clean up the voter rolls, in person voting with paper ballots and ID for starters. Mail in ballots must be monitored closely and hard to get with explicit rules. This would go a long way for fair and accurate voting. Still have the issue of driver licenses being automatically adding to voter registration just look at Michigan and California.
And you provide no proof. It’s already been established voter fraud even by mail is super rare. FYI Trump always votes by mail and he’s a convicted felon.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It’s already been established voter fraud even by mail is super rare.
No, it hasn’t. On the contrary, the Carter-Baker commission established that it was distressingly common, and recommended measures to make it harder to commit and easier to detect.
X says nothing to see here!
Turley’s use of the 5th circuit interpretation using “history and tradition” which shows why they like using it. It allows the courts and more conservative judges to be very selective in cases that would require them to rule against their own conservative views.
The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, uses the exact same grammatical architecture as the 26th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
In the early 20th century, some states passed laws exempting women from paying poll taxes or from certain registration burdens, claiming it “accommodated” women’s unique financial dependencies or domestic duties. Conversely, some states restricted certain voting hours or locations in ways that practically favored men.
Under the 19th Amendment, courts and legislatures recognized that you cannot ration voting mechanisms by sex, even if labeled an “accommodation”. If a state offered a streamlined path to the ballot box, it had to be offered to men and women equally. A state could not argue: “Men still have the right to vote in person, so giving women a special exemption doesn’t abridge men’s rights.”
The 4th circuit’s ruling aligns with this by using age from the 26th amendment which is almost identical to the 19th amendment’s phrasing. This is why Turley finds the argument “compelling” while at the same time has to make an argument to support the flawed view from the right to give it some legal weight to argue the flawed interpretation method used by the right.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott (which Turley champions) relied on a “history and tradition” test heavily borrowed from modern Second Amendment law. They argued that because absentee voting was extremely limited when the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971, the authors of the amendment could not have intended for mail-in ballots to be a protected right.
The 19th Amendment exposes this methodology as an inconvenient and contradictory manipulation of history for three reasons:
When evaluating the Second Amendment, a “history and tradition” test looks at the object of the regulation (e.g., what types of weapons existed in 1791).
But the 19th and 26th Amendments are equality principles, not technology principles. If we applied the Fifth Circuit’s logic to the 19th Amendment, a state could legally pass a law saying: “Only women can use electronic voting machines; men must use paper ballots, because electronic voting didn’t exist in 1920 so men aren’t losing a right they historically had.” Everyone instinctively recognizes that would be unconstitutional sex discrimination.
The greatest irony of using a “history and tradition” test against younger voters is that the 26th Amendment was explicitly ratified to stop states from treating young adults as second-class citizens.In 1971, young Americans were being drafted into the Vietnam War but were denied the ballot box. The “history and tradition” of the states at that time was one of deliberate exclusion of young people. Using the historical fact that states heavily restricted absentee voting in 1971 to justify keeping those restrictions in place today uses the exact prejudice the Amendment was passed to destroy.
Turley and the Fifth Circuit argue that an “abridgment” only happens if a state takes away a right, but not if it grants a benefit to one group and leaves others behind.The 19th Amendment completely refutes this. If a state in 1921 extended “no-excuse” voting to women but required men to show up in person with a restrictive excuse, it would have been immediately struck down as an abridgment of men’s voting rights on account of sex. The Fifth Circuit arbitrarily decided that this rule of absolute neutrality applies to sex (19th) and race (15th), but magically does not apply to age (26th), despite the text being identical.
The 19th Amendment proves that anti-discrimination amendments are not time-capsules meant to freeze the mechanical restrictions of a bygone era. They are absolute commands. When South Carolina altered the rules of the game to give older citizens “voting insurance” against unforeseen events, leaving younger citizens exposed to those same risks, it violated that command. Turley wants to agree with the 4th circuit, but he has to put out an argument tries hard to support the conservative need to be very selective when interpreting the constitution to fit the conservative view rather than what the constitution plainly states.
Is there a point in that jumble of words?
Jumble? You must have dyslexia. It’s ok. There’s resources available to help with your problem.
Stop being whiny X. You brought on yourself. You cannot talk with authority or have credibility in this case without having a legal background. You are not a lawyer. Only Turley can speak with authority.
Who is being whiny? You’re the one complaining the most. You’re whining because you cannot refute or counter what I posted. You don’t have to be an authority to point out Turley’s flaws. It was not hard BTW.
gptzero.me says it’s a mix of AI and “human” but couldn’t specify Homo Sapien.
The 19th Amendment was a huge mistake.
In NH there is a debate about the right of college students in voting in state and local elections and the use of student ID’s as proof of residency.
Any thoughts?
Well, if students are correctly domiciled in the state where they go to school and if they are there for more than a year it would seem reasonable to allow them to vote on local issues. If they work there and pay taxes why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote in their communities?
“Correctly domiciled”? Definitely not a legal term. What if they live in tent on a private residence and rent the ground? Wouldn’t a drivers license dictate legal residency? What if the car they drive is registered in their home state. No student would register the vehicle in the new state, because of the tax consequences, or get a drivers license, if their home state license is acceptable where they school for part of the year. A new license means they would have to give up the old one to the local DMV for a new state license. A new license establishes residency. A passport, as a form of ID, would be only issued to the students home residence (parents) mailing address.
A majority of students are not residing in a foreign/different state for a full calendar year. A majority live in dorms. They have a break, summer break, they go “home”, to their parents residences, their legal residence according to the school’s records. They go “home”, where they maybe already registered to vote, or have a history of voting there. If anything, the ability to vote by mail makes the issue moot.
Reasonable? Communities? You do not have a legal mind X.
Student IDs lack residence addresses. They could vote twice, no problem.
X should change his name to A I.
and yours to local drunk.
HullBobby,
You are correct.
Swiss Business School found that younger age groups exhibited a higher amount of dependence on AI models and lower critical thinking scores.
In short, they are not very bright.
Stupid comment from a stupid commenter
I cited the Swiss Business School.
You, proved you are not very bright.
HAHAHAHAAHAHHA!
You cited nothing. Get an education learn what a citation is and means. You really a fool and idiot.
Hey where’s your butt buddy?
Living rent free …
Ah!
Your higher-indoctrination grammar education is showing again!
HAHAHAHAHAH!
Pissed eh? Good job anon.
No one is pissed.
We are just laughing at you!
As usual you’re making an ass of yourself.
Higher dependence does not mean they are not smarter. Just like the day when computers were starting to become common. Younger people were using them more than older people. Remember that? Those younger folks are now the experts in computing and programing. Those who avoided their use were left behind. Now it’s AI. The younger ones using it will become more adept and knowledgeable about its benefits than the older folks who will inevitably be left behind whining and moaning about it.
History repeats itself.
College instructor goes viral for catching students’ AI use on midterm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2026/07/29/college-instructor-catches-students-using-ai-midterm-viral/91091359007/
A Professor Created a Trap in His Midterm to Catch Students Using AI. Nearly All Made the Same Mistake
https://www.today.com/parents/family/professor-catches-ai-cheating-hidden-word-rcna589421
gptzero.me told on him.
Let’s face it, he’s very busy convincing everyone here how incredibly intelligent he is and how everyone else is way wrong. so he needs an AI assistant to get through it all.
But XAI would be a VERY ironic name for our human-semblance X:
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is a set of processes and methods that allows human users to comprehend and trust the results and output created by machine learning algorithms.
You sound jealous. And a bit slow to comprehend, but that’s ok. Keep on whining.
stupid AI, who gave you access here? unplug yourself you’re hallucinating.
When the Second Amendment was ratified, Americans could own the standard military service rifle, a right that we lost for good in the 1950s.
When the 2A was ratified rifles existed, but they were not standard military equipment.
Under the 19th Amendment, courts and legislatures recognized that you cannot ration voting mechanisms by sex, even if labeled an “accommodation”
Which courts were those? (What legislatures “recognized” is irrelevant, of course. A legislature cannot interpret the law; whatever it asserts about the law is purely its own opinion and of no value.)
This case is one of many similar cases in a chapter titled “Impossible Problems – The Law” in my new book on problem solving. The law has plenty of impossible problems without those co-mingled with politics. While the law presents itself as a cold, hard logical system, it is, or has become, a polluted pool of opinions, such as the SC case with your wise comment citing the decision as “compelling but unconvincing.” This is a strong assessment, but it betrays the legal system as increasingly vague.
Please note Professor Turley does not read or respond to comments, or do book reviews.
Who is this “Asministration?” Never heard of such a thing.
Thing?
gdonaldallen,
“Asministration” is nothing more than another useless annony. Annony serves no purpose in life other than to make inane and stupid comments in order to try to validate annony’s existence.
And annony fails.
As with annony’s failure to launch, to amount to anything in life, dependence on annony’s parents for nearly everything.
Can you imagine being a 30-year old Gen Z, man-child still dependent on your parents?
What is annony going to look like at 50?
Can you imagine being a 75 year old divorcee and living in a trailer. No education. Sucking off social security. No family, just phantom internet buddies who names he doesn’t even know. Oh yeah, a great life huh? Being drunk and hanging on the internet all day.
Seeing as how I am not 75, divorced, living in a trailer, accessing SS I cannot imagine that.
I have over seen the morning chores, having a second cup of coffee and going to make breakfast here shortly for me and my employees.
That is what successful business men do.
Successful, at what, butting?
Its overseen, not over seen.
You got the mind of fool. A paranoid one.
“but it betrays the legal system as increasingly vague.” If the legal system was vague then, how can it be “increasingly vague” now?
Professor Turley disagrees with the 4th circuit. Fine. But his attempt to use the Texas 2nd amendment use to interpret what “infringement” means is stretching it by a lot.
“Abridgment” at the time of the founding and the 1971 ratification meant to shorten, diminish, or deprive someone of equal status.
When a state extends a new voting benefit (like “no-excuse” mail-in ballots) to one age bracket while intentionally withholding it from another, it relative-down-grades the voting power and access of the excluded group. Abridgment can happen through relative disadvantage, not just the physical stripping away of an old rule.
The 26th Amendment is an anti-discrimination command. Like the 15th (race) and 19th (sex) Amendments, it forbids the state from using a specific characteristic (age) as a proxy to distribute voting privileges unequally. Using a “history and tradition” test to justify blatant age-based classification defeats the entire purpose of an anti-discrimination amendment designed to outlaw age barriers.
Turley notes that “when the 26th Amendment was ratified, most voting was done in person”, implying that modern extensions of absentee voting are mere “luxuries” outside the scope of the Amendment.
This freezes constitutional protections to the exact technology available in 1971.
While the mechanics of voting evolve, the prohibition against discrimination does not. If a state modernizes its elections to allow a preferred class of voters to bypass lines, weather, and work conflicts solely based on age, it leaves younger voters facing those structural burdens unequally.
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Grant v. Belangia correctly recognizes that while South Carolina is not forced to offer absentee voting to anyone, if it does choose to offer it, it cannot use an arbitrary age cutoff to decide who gets it.
Turley is only disagreeing with the ruling because he has to adhere to the double standard views of the right. He admits the 4th circuit’s reasoning is solid, but he has to “disagree” for the sake of maintaining the more flawed rationales of the 5th circuit and other courts flawed use of ‘history and tradition’ interpretations to fit the preferred narrative of those on the right.
“means is stretching it by a lot.”? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Didn’t think so.
Don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer to point out the flaw in Turley’s reasoning. He admits the 4th circuit’s ruling is pretty solid. But he has to “disagree” to preserve the more selective conservative view which I pointed out is a flawed argument from the start.
“Don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer to point out the flaw …” You most certainly do. Without it you have credibility or authority, yet demand we accept your questionable rationale and the thinly veiled lies as authoritative. You’ve stated numerous times that you have no legal background or experience.
In the future please include a disclaimer – “No legal background or experience” – in your screeds.
You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to point out flaws in Turley’s arguments. Nothing says you must be a lawyer to do so. Just like many here who post or rant about issues they have no credibility or authority to do so. It’s that pesky free speech thing and the free exchange of ideas, points of view, and perspectives. Plus….Turley’s arguments are always fair game. Always.
No disclaimer needed. You’re not pointing out that I’m wrong. You’re just griping that I’m not a lawyer. It doesn’t take a lawyer to point out flaws in Turley’s reasoning.
” Nothing says you must be a lawyer to do so.” True, but that’s a self-serving and vague justification. Actually a silly response.
Fact is, you are not a lawyer, have no expertise in the subject matter. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Great, thanks for agreeing with me and contradicting yourself at the same time.
It’s not a vague justification. It’s a clear point. I can point out Turley’s view is flawed any way I want by any means. It doesn’t take a degree or be an authority to look up info, research it, understand it, and post a counter-argument including examples and citations.
Google, AI, and the vast trove of information available on your computer or phone can be used to offer a rebuttal, or refutation any time.
What is still obvious is you’re not saying or proving what I pointed out is wrong or flawed. You’re only questioning my “authority” or “credentials” to be able to post what is clearly more substantive than what you have been offering.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to point out Turley’s flaws. His views and arguments are always fair game regardless of whether you’re a lawyer or not.
And what law school did you attend
Don’t you know. george is a expert on (everything)
Just ask him.
What’s your expertise Dustoff?
Medical
Guinea pig for drugs?
More AI garbage in, garbage out.
The 26A, like its predecessors, isn’t a prohibition on discrimination. It’s only a prohibition on disenfranchisement, complete or partial.
For instance, the 19th amendment only protects women’s right to vote, as that right was understood in 1920. If a state were to decide now that men must vote in person but women can vote by mail, that would not violate the 19th, though it might violate the 14th.
See Breedlove v Suttles, the majority of whose reasoning remains valid.
Well done 4th Circuit. Now do voting for illegals and tourists.
Same law applies to them. No change.
What have they got to do with the 26th amendment?