My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Naturally
Correct. States simply don’t have this power. The decision was unanimous for a reason.
They are excplicitly given this power in the constitution, what are you talking about?
What is the text of the last section of Amendment 14?
Why?
There is no “why”. I asked a question.
For no reason? Helpful of you.
My bad. I overestimated the ability of people on this website to infer subtext.
The last section of Amendment 14 explains why the Supreme Court was more or less correct in its interpretation before you edited your original comment.
This is why I added that context to my original comment.
All I had to do was add the literal quotes from the constitution to render the supreme court obviously incorrect.
States rights*
*terms and conditions apply
Always has been. States have never had free reign to do anything they want. This is one of the things they cannot do.
States already do things like bar felons from voting and only put on 3rd party candidates that meet a certain signature threshold. Or add barriers to voting, like restricting when you can vote and ID laws.
Pretty much how it goes. Laws affect peons: oh well. Laws affect wealthy politicians: off to SCOTUS for them to overturn it!