My bottom line: The law should benefit people or prevent them from being harmed without unduly burdening the rights of those whose conduct is being regulated or criminalized..
One example is voter fraud.
To what extent should we impose barriers to the exercise of this fundamental right when seeking to prevent individuals from voting illegally?
The Congress struck the proper balance when it enacted the Help America Vote Act in the wake of the Florida recount in 2000.
In addition to official government documents, proof of residency can be demonstrated by a person’s address on a rent notice or a utility bill.
My legislation, which was enacted, adopts that federal standard when an individual’s right to vote is challenged at a polling location.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gel§ion=10-312&ext=html&session=2018RS&tab=subject5
A second example of that balancing act is gun control.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Who wrote that? It was Justice Scalia in his majority opinion striking down DC’s gun control law.
When the members of the Congress, the General Assembly, or any other legislative body seek to prevent the loss of life due to firearms, we must do so without violating the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.
But we can do so, as Justice Scalia pointed out.
And we must.
