Can Federal Courts overrule North Carolina's Vote ID Constitutional Amendment?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?
united-states constitution voting amendment
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?
united-states constitution voting amendment
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?
united-states constitution voting amendment
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?
united-states constitution voting amendment
united-states constitution voting amendment
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
edited 9 hours ago
WELZ
2041112
2041112
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
asked 13 hours ago
Joe Swain
341
341
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).
A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.
Update:
The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.
It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.
The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.
State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.
Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).
A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.
Update:
The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.
It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.
The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.
State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.
Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).
A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.
Update:
The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.
It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.
The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.
State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.
Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).
A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.
Update:
The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.
It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.
The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.
State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.
Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.
Article 6, Paragraph 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).
A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.
Update:
The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.
It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.
The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.
State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.
Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
edited 4 mins ago
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
answered 12 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,84421137
6,84421137
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
11
11
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
– phoog
10 hours ago
2
2
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
– phoog
10 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
– Acccumulation
9 hours ago
2
2
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
@Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
– Viktor
5 hours ago
1
1
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
– phoog
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35477%2fcan-federal-courts-overrule-north-carolinas-vote-id-constitutional-amendment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
