You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.
The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.
If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.
Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.
Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?
I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.
Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.
So you only know what you think.
Im OK with that.
FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better
Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?
I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.
I don't think it is either...but if the subject is clear...for example....BLUE WHALES....and then I go on to discuss under the title..."whales" the reader, at least a reasonable reader, should understand I am discussing Blue Whales.
In this case, if the subject, is clear...as it is CAMPAIGNS...and I got on to say person in the subsection...I am referring to the people associated with the campaign.
No really. The subject is “campaign activity” if you actually read the title. It doesn’t say anything about “campaign members”. It would seem that the section considers giving out water to be a “campaign activity”. This is clearly the intent to apply to all people given the prohibition against all persons from campaigning in the area of the polling place. I think we can both agree that no one is allowed to campaign at the polling place regardless of whether they belong to the campaign or not. Right?
yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.
So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.
Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.
actually, in law, "no person " applies to everyone because you can not argue that someone is not a person.
However, when you say "person" it opens up the debate as to who are you referring to.....and it opens up the debate as to who is a person in the eyes of the law.
Don't get me wrong. It is silly, foolish and ridiculous.
But that is how attorneys think....and an attorney of the opposite side needs to be prepared for it.
Look at how the debate of fetuses and abortion has gone. If the original argument in Roe Vs Wade was "it is a living being with human DNA that requires oxygen to survive, the whole debate may have gone a different way. Instead, the pro lifer side called it a living human being... a person......and that opened up the debate. No?
www.theguardian.com
