Are there any standards to prove a law is necessary? or in the public's interest?

[Takket]

When a law is passed, can it be challenged under Judicial review principles in the courts to prove that it is necessary?

As I see now rethugs are moving over 100 bills through state legislatures to strip away our voting rights, can they be forced to "prove" they are needed?

Example: Florida and DeSantis are trying to restrict the use of drop boxes. Drop boxes were used effectively and safely to not only deliver legitimate votes but literally saved many lives by giving people an option to avoid long lines in a deadly pandemic.

Can someone challenge the law in court and force florida to explain WHY they are passing the law? To prove that there is something wrong with the boxes that makes removing them in the public's interest? I mean, we aren't stupid... we all know the only reason for this is to force people in major cities into long lines where they simply don't have enough time to vote, hurting Democrats.

And if they cannot prove there is a reason for a law, does that matter? If Florida passed a law reducing the state speed limit to 10MPH, do they need to give a reason for that, or is it just "they passed the law, if you don't like it, elect someone else in 2 years"?

[SpankMe]

1. There are lots of discussions of this online,

...and in law schools. Unfortunately, there are no requirements saying a proposed law has to be necessary or that it solves a particular problem or addresses a particular issue. Legislatures can propose, author and pass any law they want.

Courts can strike it down on constitutional grounds. But I don't know of any requirements in state constitutions or the federal constitution that requires a proposed law is "necessary". That can get pretty subjective.

There a lot of laws out there - passed by both parties - that could be characterized as solutions seeking problems.