Wait, in the case of the VRA the presumption of guilt was based on past legal behavior, while in the case of child molesters in Alaska, it was based on past illegal behavior. There is no basis whatsoever to conflate legal and illegal behavior.
Wait, child molesting was illegal when those folks were convicted of molesting children. A new law was passed that treated convicted child molesters as suspect. Their status as suspects was based on their illegal behavior. Illegal acts foreited, rightly or wrongly, their presumption of innocence.
Southern legislatures did not engage in any illegal redistricting act. None, zero, zip, nada.
Those points are moot as far as the ex post facto argument goes, since the presumption of guilt is not punitive. If it is not punitive in a case where a law had actually been violated, then it can't be punitive in a case where no law had been violated. Whether it is fair or not is subject to debate (and I'll certainly give you that point), but it is not punitive, which is the legal precedent for determining whether the ex post facto clause has been violated.
You made an apples and oranges comparison between laws that presume someone duly convicted of a crime is suspect to offend again, with a law that presumes someone who did something perfectly legal is suspect to do the same thing now that it has been criminalized.
I made an apples to apples comparison between the presumption of guilt in the Alaska law and the presumption of guilt in the VRA. If one is ruled as being not punitive, so must the other.
That's a fancy way to say that once a law is passed people have an obligation to obey that law.[/quote]
That's right!
That wasn't the question raised by
you. That was the question raised by Napoleon, which is why it was in response to his post in the first place.
That wasn't the question raised either. I'm not disputing that point. In fact, I even agree with it. I'm merely debunking your argument that the VRA constitutes an ex post facto law.
And, suspecting people based on past lawful behavior is applying a law retroactively rather than proactively.[/quote]
But, as per SCOTUS rulings in cases such as Smith v. Doe, it only violates the ex post facto clause if the consequences are punitive, which they are not in this case.