Can you outline the "precedent" of the variability over the last 200 years?
I think they addressed that issue very well. The fact is, there is no precedent. There is not alot of case law supporting variable voting standards, EXCEPT that up to this point, we've allowed different precincts and counties to set their own standards. The fact that nobody has fought that issue in an aggressive manner in 200 years DOESN'T mean there is a precedent. It just means that it hasn't had any bearing up to this point.
I'm a supporter of Roe v. Wade, but here's how your logic plays out in the RvW case:
The fact that people had been jailed during the previous 180 years prior to RvW, and that little case law existed supporting a woman's right to choose, while much existed supporting anti-abortion stands, means that the SC IGNORED precedent and overturned 180 years of case law. In the prevailing 180 years, according to your logic, the SC IGNORED the abortion issue (just as you claim they've ignored the voting issue).
Fact is, your logic doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
