we are back to work with argument in the case of valenti against abortion mr mintz thank you may please the court indiana law prohibits the appellant brian flint from voting on election day at his community polling place and thereby to vote well i believe that you have to deal with the election system that is at issue in that state so he has a statutory right to vote that's true but i don't think in the same way that  once a state gives someone the the right to vote by absentee ballot state why not why couldn't the state say here's a group of people who are entitled to vote by our grace and a condition of that grant is that they cast absentee ballots what's wrong with that well i don't think that i don't think the state could for example discriminate on the basis of race what once they grant that that right there is always a problem of unconstitutional conditions but why don't you deal with my hypothetical sure the state says we are allowing former felons to vote in this state but felons must cast absentee ballots is there any problem under the federal constitution with that again i don't think that section two of the fourteenth amendment limits i think that's  honor i mean i would i would still argue that the burden here is much more than the mere inconvenience of having to drive a few extra miles as this court and others of them recognize forcing a voter to vote one vote days or even weeks before an election by absentee ballot deprives the voter of late breaking news political developments in the ability to make up their mind at the last minute why couldn't he just white's a last minute drive the extra nine miles or well to the last minute and vote by mail certainly those would deal with that issue of early voting he does have this opportunity to go to another town but by going to that other town he's deprived the ability to vote with his community members and she has do you think the state's interest in protecting children you know here we've got toting occurring on a school day in the high school's gym from a convicted child interests are implicated here and here i think there are a couple facts that make that and that interest minimal at best in this context so first mr valenti was convicted of a sex crime a quarter of a century ago and there's and ye you know under our system he someone who is a convicted child sex offender for life certainly a friend i hear in our system certainly he has that conviction  really and that's what we're doing here but as the supreme court recently stated and packing him even if you've been convicted of of these crimes you still have constitutional rights are stuck texans in the discussions for russia not being violated he can vote he can vote but as as many courts have stated the right to vote in the supreme court included has stated the right to go to extends beyond the ability to physically cast a ballot there's other rights association on express or rights that come along with that right community polling place and we cite multiple cases where voters have expressed this interest of being able to to poll with their community members meet local candidates at the polling place and you know as a state as the supreme court stated in crawford no matter how small the burden is the state must justify it and here w what we have to look at exactly what the risk posed here beyond mr the n t is nothing in the record beyond the fact that he has the fact that he's been convicted of a sex offense indicates that gotos do you think he can attend a school play presented in the auditorium of a local high school or attending a play is actually really protected by the first amendment right even former felons have the same first amendment rights to see plays so does he have a first amendment right to see the play notwithstanding his conviction as a child molester he might and that would be a very different case and obviously the standard and i think there is that those more strange that he has any such right  well there's cases in the indiana supreme that are making their way up to the indiana supreme court right now challenging parents ability to enter the school under the statute that's under review but but this case is really specific to the facts here there's a constitutional right to vote burials there isn't we've got past that your client has a statutory right to vote but not a constitution let me explore that interests a little bit more so again let's let's look at what the context is here unlike the play  this is election day and this is a polling place in the gym i mean this is a highly regulated environment where children cannot be unintended government officials are present to watch what's going on and in a row the only i think he have recess is they have lunch time you know they use the same restroom there are a lot of places that are unattained the details of where children can go on in this particular school during election day it's not in the record but i would i would say that even the school itself regulates where children can go during the school day and certainly the polling place is limited to the gym and so in other words if someone had to use the restroom they would not be permitted to do that i would suspect no that's not in the record again thank god that's a better claim wander so again the polling place is highly regulated i think it's hyped much more regulated than any of the other places high school age children would be would be voting on it but it's also regulated by electioneering you know in your for in your brief you stated that  of lenny wants the opportunity to talk to local candidate selection or congregate around the polling place on election day yet section three days fourteen three day scene and three five to ten a person annoyingly doesn't  for he can vote before election day either by mail an absentee ballot or by walking freshly five hundred yards to the local courthouse to cast his ballot in person up to noon before the election day he also can vote in place then he has the mail an absentee ballot or the ability to walk on your yards and and the and that's it brings a valid point is that there are probably many people who for one reason or another do not have the opportunity to have transportation to go and vote in person and that's why the state of indiana like many other states offer a male an absentee ballot option so that everyone would have an opportunity to cast their vote and also in chicago they come they gave you up an additional point regarding mr valenti's argument is that his claim that his vote right to vote is substantially burdened is based on the assumption that he has a constitutional right to vote specifically in person with his local community on election day constitutional right to vote under indiana law felons do have the opportunity to vote in indiana so there would technically be no constitutional claim of directorates and your americas however that specific argument was not test we simply look at whether his right to vote as a whole is burdened and i think that the argument that he has substantial that he has a right to vote in person with little me on election day that kind of holding w yes indiana that's amazing to me how do you know that someone has to go into twelve polling places i don't know the exact details about their system but in the united does have a vote center model where you can pick but so i mean india and i just want to make voting as easy as possible and does provide these numerous opportunities for people and so it cannot be recently said that mr flynt is right to vote in substantially birds because of that state and he's provide a rational basis for the i also think that particularly making schools safe zones gives parents peace of mind knowing that their kids can wander about the school going to the bathroom and from class to class without having to interact with someone who could be a potential sexual predator and the u s supreme court   so he could easily walk a day or talk to someone make sure his ballot is properly filled out before submitting it in person i would also add that it's important that in burdick burdick notes that it is states have why discretion and determining the timing manner in which elections should be held and fact voting as noted in voting integrity oregon and then also washington now washington and colorado actually have an only mail in absentee ballot system so that bal fifty us states wept out i apologize get there and that brings up concerns while maybe chicago and other places are fortune off to provide transportation i think that would piss ant an undue burden on states to go through throughout the state and provide transportation to all residents that they could  be able to vote so as i said i think the district court probably decided this case including that mr valenti's right to vote has not been substantially burdened and that the state's interest in protecting children and her friday in a safe place for kids is a rational basis that would uphold the statue so if there are no further questions the state would ask that this court affirm the distance judgment in this case shortly counsel thank you