Crosshair said:Then answer me this. Why not a reasonable non-punitive poll tax? If you can have it on guns and free speech why NOT on voting to allow counties to cover the costs of running an election? Seriously, give me a reason.
Strict scrutiny requires that laws that infringe a fundamental constitutional right must be justified by a compelling government interest that is achieved in a narrowly tailored manner that is the least restrictive manner to address the interest. Poll taxes fail the 'compelling government interest' requirement as stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. ... To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Note that Harper prohibited poll taxes as a condition of voting; states could still assess poll taxes, but could not prevent people from voting if the taxes were not paid.
In this context -- that is, as a condition of obtaining a ballot -- the requirement of fee paying causes an "invidious" discrimination that runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. Levy "by the poll," as stated in [p669] Breedlove v. Suttles, supra, at 281, is an old familiar form of taxation, and we say nothing to impair its validity so long as it is not made a condition to the exercise of the franchise.
Is the excise tax on firearms constitutional? Maybe it is; maybe it is not. We will have to see whether anyone wants to challenge the law in court and then see what creative arguments can be presented regarding the compelling government interest that is served by the excise tax and whether there is a less restrictive way in which that interest could be achieved.