Proposed Constitutional Amendment: Voting Rights [Archive]

Blalron

08-10-2004, 04:10 PM

This is a fairly straightforward amendment that I'm proposing. It may seem redundant at first due to other provisions in the Constitution, but I will explain.

Section 1. All citizens of the United States of at least eighteen years of age have the right to vote in elections.

Section 2. The right of citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older to run for public office on an equal basis shall not be infringed.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to deny the power of States to further expand the electorate.

With section 1 you're probably thinking: haven't other amendments adequetly guaranteed the right to vote? Not quite.

The 15th amendment prohibits denying the vote on the basis of race or color.

The 19th amendment prohibits denying the vote on the basis of sex.

The 24th amendment prohibits denying the vote in federal elections on the basis of a poll tax or any other tax. But it still leaves the door open for states to impose a poll tax in state elections.

A voting rights amendment is neccesary because there needs to be a clear right for everyone to vote. If you are a citizen, and you are subject to the laws of the United States and of the State you reside, you should have a say in how those laws are made. Period. There should be no possible loopholes to disenfranchise anyone (like in Florida in 2000) for political gain.

If that means we have to allow felons, the mentally retarded, and the insane an opportunity to vote, then so be it. I'd rather err on the side of letting more people vote than having less people vote. If a person is competant enough to request a ballot and fill it out in such a way that it can be validly counted, our inquiry into their mental state should end there.

begbert2

08-10-2004, 04:21 PM

Blalron

08-10-2004, 04:34 PM

Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already a postive definition of who is allowed to vote already in the constitution? (or, failing that, in uncontested legislation directly supported threby.) If it ain't broke, why fix it?

There's no affirmative right for everyone to vote. There's only a small list of reasons why it can't be taken away. Race, Gender, and Age (if you are 18 or over).

begbert2

08-10-2004, 05:07 PM

So then, the consitution provides a loose set of criteria, which are made more specific in conventional legislation. (No conficted felons, etc.) This seems fairly normal, and I'm not personally disturbed about it.

A constitutional amendment is a pretty big hammer. In addition to invalidating any existing legislation that clarifies who may vote and who may not, you'd make the process of altering these qualifications in the future extremely difficult: you'd have to pass another amendment.

As far as I know, this isn't even a terribly pressing issue at the moment; perhaps I've just not been paying attention, but have there been that many controversial cases of voter denail lately? If this is just a personal preference, you might be shooting for a conventional law here. Though, I'd bet that there are already conventional laws that say pretty much what you're shooting for (give or take the convicted ciminals and mentally incompetent, who you yourself comment merit 'inquiry'), making the point moot.

If such laws are not in place, feel free to propose them. Though since common law does imply them, you might find yourself on the recieving end of some odd looks.

furt

08-10-2004, 05:52 PM

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 06:07 PM

As far as I know, this isn't even a terribly pressing issue at the moment; perhaps I've just not been paying attention, but have there been that many controversial cases of voter denail lately?

Errmm . . . yes, there have been. In 2000. Especially here in Florida. Remember the "felons list," etc., etc.? We've had several recent GD threads on this.

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has already introduced a Voting Rights Amendment in the House -- mainly in reaction to the events of the 2000 election. From http://www.fairvote.org/articles/jessejr.htm:

Position Paper Presented
At The
Center For Voting & Democracy
"Claim Democracy Conference"
By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
American University's
Washington College of Law
Saturday, November 22, 2003

Most Americans believe that the "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.

The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative individual right to vote!

Even though the "vote of the people" is perceived as supreme in our democracy - because voting rights are protective of all other rights - the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution - "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia besieged Gore's lawyer with inquiries premised on the assumption that there is no constitutional right of suffrage in the election of a president, and state legislatures have the legal power to choose presidential electors without recourse to a popular vote. "In the eyes of the [Supreme] Court, democracy is rooted not in the right of the American people to vote and govern but in a set of state-based institutional arrangements for selecting leaders." (Overruling Democracy - The Supreme Court vs. The American People, By Jamin B. Raskin, p. 7)

If candidate George Bush had lost in the Supreme Court in 2000, Florida's Republican-controlled legislature was prepared to ignore the six million popular votes cast in Florida. They were determined to elect, select, choose, and hand pick their own "Bush presidential electors" and send them to Congress for certification if necessary. Thus, even if all votes had been counted and Al Gore had won Florida's popular vote, and his electors had been sent to Congress, under our current Constitution the Florida legislature could have sent their slate of Bush electors to Congress and it would have been perfectly legal - and a "strict constructionist" or necessary constitutional interpretation - for Congress to have recognized the Bush electors.

Only a Voting Rights Amendment can fix these flaws in our Constitution.
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a "state right." Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

Without the constitutional right to vote, Congress can pass voter legislation - and I support progressive electoral reform legislation - but it leaves the "states' rights" system in place. Currently, Congress mostly uses financial and other incentives to entice the states to cooperate and comply with the law. It's one reason there have been so many problems with the recently passed Help America Vote Act, and why many states still have not fully complied with the law.

Our "states' rights" voting system is structured to be "separate and unequal." As we saw in the 2000 election, there are 50 states, 3,067 counties, tens of thousands of cities, and many different machines and methods of voting - all "separate and unequal."

There's ONLY ONE WAY to legally guarantee "an equal right to vote" to every individual American and that is to add a Voting Rights Amendment to the Constitution!

The lack of basic political rights for all Americans was made even clearer in Alexander v. Mineta, a case to gain political representation for the disenfranchised citizens in our nation's capitol, the District of Columbia. Ignoring the democratic ideal of voting, the court said, "The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added) "To be qualified, you must belong to a `state' within the meaning of Article I and the Seventeenth Amendment and must be granted the right to vote by the state." (Overruling Democracy - The Supreme Court vs. The American People, By Jamin B. Raskin, p. 36)

I believe that voting is not only a democratic right, it is a human right. That human right is not in our Constitution! That's why I have proposed legislation to add a voting rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of all Americans to vote. It was introduced in the U.S. House as House Joint Resolution 28. It reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

SECTION 4. Each State and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall establish and abide by rules for appointing its respective number of Electors. Such rules shall provide for the appointment of Electors on the day designated by the Congress for holding an election for President and Vice President and shall ensure that each Elector votes for the candidate for President and Vice President who received a majority of the popular vote in the State or District.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Sounds good to me! Does anyone on this board have a problem with any part of that proposed amendment?

Mr2001

08-10-2004, 06:12 PM

As long as we're amending the Constitution, why not remove or change that "eighteen years of age" nonsense?

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 06:16 PM

As long as we're amending the Constitution, why not remove or change that "eighteen years of age" nonsense?

I could live with fifteen . . .

Oh, wait, you're not talking about sexual consent, are you?

Munch

08-10-2004, 06:17 PM

Can we also tag on a little "And the second Tuesday of November shall forthwith be declared a National Holiday" to that?

furt

08-10-2004, 06:26 PM

Sounds good to me! Does anyone on this board have a problem with any part of that proposed amendment?Yes.

I have no idea what an "election performance standard" is. I also do not see what will be done if states fail to meet them.

If my state fails to meet the "standard" in an election, can that election be challenged?

Are there any current laws that contradict article 3? If not, it is unnecessary and an invitation to a multitude of lawsuits over the meaning of "opportunity."

Ditto section 4; which also takes away a right states currently have: that of splitting their electoral votes (a la Maine). This increases, rather than decreases the probability of popular-minority Presidents.

Just more government-centric, "we have a federal agency for that!" thinking. Bleah.

John Mace

08-10-2004, 06:29 PM

Does anyone on this board have a problem with any part of that proposed amendment?

Section 3. States don't have the ability to verify a person's eligibility to vote if he or she can register on the day of the election. I see no reason that a person shouldn't be required to register to vote several weeks before an election.

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 06:47 PM

I have no idea what an "election performance standard" is. I also do not see what will be done if states fail to meet them.

If my state fails to meet the "standard" in an election, can that election be challenged?[/furt]

Re-read the amendment -- Congress would be required to set election performance standards every four years, and if your state fails to meet that standard in an election of course the election could be challenged. That is the point.

[QUOTE=furt]Are there any current laws that contradict article 3?

Of course. Very few states allow same-day voter registration. In fact, so far as I know, no state allows it.

Ditto section 4; which also takes away a right states currently have: that of splitting their electoral votes (a la Maine). This increases, rather than decreases the probability of popular-minority Presidents.

Now there you have a point! And I wonder what Jackson was thinking. No I don't, he is trying to deprive state legislatures of the power to award the state's electoral votes on their own authority regardless of who the people voted for -- as the Republican-controlled Florida legislature threatened to do in 2000. (Turned out not to be necessary.) Yes, I would change that clause to allow for proportional allocation of a state's electoral votes, or even to require that in place of the winner-take-all rule most states follow -- but, hell, we should be abolishing the Electoral College anyway, and I'm sure Jackson would agree. That would be a different amendment.

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 06:57 PM

Section 3. States don't have the ability to verify a person's eligibility to vote if he or she can register on the day of the election. I see no reason that a person shouldn't be required to register to vote several weeks before an election.

And what do you mean by "verify a person's eligibility to vote"? Read Section 1: "All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides." That means no one is disqualified by being an ex-felon or, for that matter, a currently incarcerated felon. Which is all to the good. Let the felon-voting bar go into the garbage can with property requirements and poll taxes and literacy tests, where it belongs. The only points to be "verified" would be:

1. Age

2. Citizenship

3. Residence in the jurisdiction

A driver's license or equivalent state ID card is considered proof of age under most circumstances -- why not for voting? The card in question would be required by law to state whether the holder is or is not a U.S. citizen, and the issuing agency would be required to check that before issuing the card -- there are plenty of mechanisms in place for checking citizenship.

A driver's license or ID card could also be used to prove residence. The amendment does not prescribe the length of residence, but really, is this an important sticking point? Do you really think either party would go to to the lengths of busing large numbers of people across a state line the week before election day?

Blalron

08-10-2004, 07:05 PM

So then, the consitution provides a loose set of criteria, which are made more specific in conventional legislation. (No conficted felons, etc.) This seems fairly normal, and I'm not personally disturbed about it.

There's still a huge potential for abuse here, with absolutely zero recourse for those disenfranchised to get their vote back. What's to stop them from reinstating the old requirement that you must own land to vote? The propertyless is not a constitutionally protected class. Millions of poor or even middle class who live in rented homes or apartments could see their vote vanish. They'd have no ability to vote the legislature that disenfranchised them out of office, since their vote is gone.

You may say it's unlikely, and it probably is, but I see no reason to have it be even theoretically legal.

And as for felons voting, they should have the right to vote. If the law that they were convicted under was an unjust law, they should have the ability to change it. If there was a marijuana legalization measure on the ballot, those who have been hit hardest by the (arguably) unfair law by being incarcerated should have the power to vote for its repeal.

A constitutional amendment is a pretty big hammer. In addition to invalidating any existing legislation that clarifies who may vote and who may not, you'd make the process of altering these qualifications in the future extremely difficult: you'd have to pass another amendment.

I'm comfortable with making it extremly difficult to take away voting rights. The very foundation of democracy is that it is derived from the consent of the governed.

Blalron

08-10-2004, 07:56 PM

If your point is that felons, etc should be allowed to vote, say so.

But this would do nothing to change the problems of faulty ballots, lost bags of votes, misposted poll times, etc. that were the problems in Florida 2000.

Ok, then add a provision in the amendment to guarantee a right to have each vote accurately counted, and if the margin of error exceeds the margin of victory in any election, there has to be another election.

Mr2001

08-10-2004, 08:15 PM

I could live with fifteen . . .

Oh, wait, you're not talking about sexual consent, are you?
Heh. Voting rights first; the rest will come naturally if minors are able to fight the loss of their rights at the ballot box.

Can we also tag on a little "And the second Tuesday of November shall forthwith be declared a National Holiday" to that?
Or, "all voters shall be allowed to cast their ballots by mail". Thanks to absentee voting, I've never had to take time off work for an election.

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 08:20 PM

Details, details. The important thing is to establish the principle that Congress has the power and the duty to nationally standardize the voting process!

Stuffy

08-10-2004, 09:49 PM

The only points to be "verified" would be:

1. Age

2. Citizenship

3. Residence in the jurisdiction

A driver's license or equivalent state ID card is considered proof of age under most circumstances -- why not for voting? The card in question would be required by law to state whether the holder is or is not a U.S. citizen, and the issuing agency would be required to check that before issuing the card -- there are plenty of mechanisms in place for checking citizenship.

A driver's license or ID card could also be used to prove residence. The amendment does not prescribe the length of residence, but really, is this an important sticking point? Do you really think either party would go to to the lengths of busing large numbers of people across a state line the week before election day?

I have several problems with this, first an foremost being fraud. If you had the power to walk up register and vote on election day, what's to keep you from going from poll to poll demanding your right to vote? Granted you could catch the wrong doer(s) afterwards of course requiring a validation of the election, I also concede that there may be some technological way to ocercome this flaw, but damn if I can see it. You'd have to have broadband ability with realtime update throughout the state in a centralized system, sorry I'm not seeing that happening.

Secondly, poll workers are generally non governmental employees, what special tools are we gonna give Grandma Poll-Worker so she can distinguish between a good ID and a fake one. Again I acknowledge that there maybe a technical way toovercome this, but see above. Thirdly susposed you just moved, what's to keep you from doing what I outlined in my first argument.

No busing required under any of these scenarios, just a few thousand misguided individuals.

Btw, no one asked me, however I believe with the looseness of the languange in Section 2 a State making a vaild (or at least valid-seeming) arguement that barring felons rom voting accomplishes:

....any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections

Just my $0.02, as I said no one asked me. Oh while we're on the subject of felons, what about the fact nearly every state does it differently. In some you lose them period, in some they are restored automatically after the end of sentence, and at others they have to be applied for restoration. Oh and since I'm offering unsolicitied opinions, who's gonna pay for all this?

BrainGlutton

08-10-2004, 09:54 PM

I have several problems with this, first an foremost being fraud. If you had the power to walk up register and vote on election day, what's to keep you from going from poll to poll demanding your right to vote?

In some countries they make every voter dip his/her thumb in indelible purple ink before voting. Doesn't wash off for a day or two.

Oh while we're on the subject of felons, what about the fact nearly every state does it differently. In some you lose them period, in some they are restored automatically after the end of sentence, and at others they have to be applied for restoration.

That's just the point, Stuffy! The amendment would put an end to those differences! All felons could vote, even while incarcerated!

Lemur866

08-11-2004, 11:36 AM

Details, details. The important thing is to establish the principle that Congress has the power and the duty to nationally standardize the voting process!

And here is the nub of the issue. Currently the constitution allows states to set their own voting standards, within certain limits. All states must have republican governments, all states have to have an 18 year minimum, all states must allow women to vote, no states can require a religious test, no state can have racial tests, and so forth.

Other than that it is up to the states. And why is this such a huge problem? What will be solved by federalizing election standards? The claim that people disenfranchised by their state standards will be disenfranchised permanently because they will never be able to vote to change those standards is ludicrous. How did women, blacks, and 18 year olds get the right to vote then? Non-voters still have the power to persuade voters that their disenfranchisment is unfair.

Right now the US constitution states that it is up to individual states to figure out how to chose a slate of electors during the presidential election. It just so happens that every state uses a statewide election to chose those electors. Why do we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?

If you are worried that we will see a wave of fascism that will overturn our current election laws and reinstitute the feudal system or some such, how exactly would a constituional amendment prevent that? The constituion is only effective because people agree that it is effective. If the United States has a broad based popular fascist movement they are just going to ignore the constitution and do what they like anyway, and waving around a piece of paper is just going to get you lynched by the fascist mob.

John Mace

08-11-2004, 11:44 AM

A driver's license or equivalent state ID card is considered proof of age under most circumstances -- why not for voting? The card in question would be required by law to state whether the holder is or is not a U.S. citizen, and the issuing agency would be required to check that before issuing the card -- there are plenty of mechanisms in place for checking citizenship.

A driver's license or ID card could also be used to prove residence. The amendment does not prescribe the length of residence, but really, is this an important sticking point? Do you really think either party would go to to the lengths of busing large numbers of people across a state line the week before election day?

Firstly, a driver's license is most definitely not proof of citizenship. We currently have no national ID card, so you'd have to implement that. If you did, I'm certain you could not get such an ID card in one day, so all you would be doing is moving back the verification period from the voter registration date to the date the person applies for a national ID. And you are ignoring the huge political battle that would take place over such a national ID card.

AHunter3

08-11-2004, 02:13 PM

Bryan Ekers

08-11-2004, 02:43 PM

Zakalwe

08-11-2004, 03:40 PM

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 03:49 PM

Well, it lowers the minimum age for US Presidential candidates from 35 (IIRC) to 18 and nullifies the "must have been born in the United States" clause.

That would be among the biggest changes, I reckon...

No it doesn't. These proposed amendments deal with qualifications to vote, not with qualifications to hold any public office, including the presidency. We would need a separate amendment to lower the age-limit for the presidency, or to open the office to naturalized citizens.

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 03:51 PM

How is this supposed to work with felons that are currently serving time? Do they "reside" in the district their prison is in? If not, are they only allowed absentee ballots? How do you reconcile that with the requirement that they be allowed to register and vote on the day of election? What about non-felons that are incarcerated on election day? Do Sherrif's deputies have to escort them to the polling place, watch them vote, and then return them to jail or should they just let me go and say "be back in an hour or else"?

Some states do allow incarcerated felons to vote, and I believe the practice is to allow them absentee ballots for wherever they resided before they were incarcerated. For the rest, I would call your attention to the obvious fact that setting up a registration-and-polling station in a prison or a county jail would be a very simple matter -- since you've got all the potential voters gathered together in one place to start with, and they mostly have nothing better to do with their time on election day.

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 03:58 PM

And here is the nub of the issue. Currently the constitution allows states to set their own voting standards, within certain limits. All states must have republican governments, all states have to have an 18 year minimum, all states must allow women to vote, no states can require a religious test, no state can have racial tests, and so forth.

Other than that it is up to the states. And why is this such a huge problem?

Lemur, once again, where were you in 2000?

Right now the US constitution states that it is up to individual states to figure out how to chose a slate of electors during the presidential election. It just so happens that every state uses a statewide election to chose those electors. Why do we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?

Because without a constitutional amendment, the state legislatures still have the option to appoint the presidential electors regardless of how the people voted, as the Republicans in control of the Florida legislature threatened to do in 2000! :mad:

Blalron

08-11-2004, 05:12 PM

Other than that it is up to the states. And why is this such a huge problem? What will be solved by federalizing election standards? The claim that people disenfranchised by their state standards will be disenfranchised permanently because they will never be able to vote to change those standards is ludicrous. How did women, blacks, and 18 year olds get the right to vote then?

Interesting story on blacks. On paper they had the constitutional right to vote, but in practice they didn't due to state imposed literacy tests, grandfather clauses, poll taxes, etc. Those problems didn't correct themselves from within those states, Congress stepped in and put and put an end to it. They federalized the process.

Lots of our rights are federally enforceable for every citizen who is denied them. Free speech for instance. I don't see what's so bad about "federalizing" another individual right.

Non-voters still have the power to persuade voters that their disenfranchisment is unfair.

Why even have nonvoters in the first place? Shouldn't voting always be a fundamental right instead of a privilege that you need to persuade others to give you?

John Mace

08-11-2004, 05:13 PM

No it doesn't. These proposed amendments deal with qualifications to vote, not with qualifications to hold any public office, including the presidency. We would need a separate amendment to lower the age-limit for the presidency, or to open the office to naturalized citizens.

From the OP (my bolding):

Section 2. The right of citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older to run for public office on an equal basis shall not be infringed

John Mace

08-11-2004, 05:16 PM

Because without a constitutional amendment, the state legislatures still have the option to appoint the presidential electors regardless of how the people voted, as the Republicans in control of the Florida legislature threatened to do in 2000! :mad:

Did they threaten to vote for Gore???

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 05:29 PM

Sorry for the confusion -- I was referring to the Voting Rights Amendment proposed by Jesse Jackson, Jr., which does not mention qualifications for public office.

Regarding Florida in 2000 -- no, the Republicans in regard of the legislature did not threaten to vote for Gore, they threatened to give all Florida's electoral votes to Bush regardless of the results of any recount process. :mad: :mad: :mad: And they might have done so, had Anthony Scalia not cut the knot for them. Jeez, were you asleep back then?

John Mace

08-11-2004, 05:41 PM

Regarding Florida in 2000 -- no, the Republicans in regard of the legislature did not threaten to vote for Gore, they threatened to give all Florida's electoral votes to Bush regardless of the results of any recount process. :mad: :mad: :mad: And they might have done so, had Anthony Scalia not cut the knot for them. Jeez, were you asleep back then?

You guys REALLY need to give this up. Bush won, Gore lost.

I was not asleep. I followed the ridiculous procedings every day and was glad the legislature had the option to end to the whole mess. If the election is a draw (which, statitstically it was), having the legislature determine the outcome is a reasonable solution.

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 05:48 PM

You guys REALLY need to give this up. Bush won, Gore lost.

I was not asleep. I followed the ridiculous procedings every day and was glad the legislature had the option to end to the whole mess. If the election is a draw (which, statitstically it was), having the legislature determine the outcome is a reasonable solution.

No, sir. Gore won, Bush lost. In Florida, anyway. But that's not the point -- the point is that the legislature, purely for partisan purposes, was willing to ignore little details like the actual vote count. You think that's a "reasonable solution"? This must be some new meaning of the term "reasonable" I wasn't familiar with. And if a constitutional amendment could stop that from ever happening again, then we need it for that reason alone!

Blalron

08-11-2004, 05:50 PM

John Mace

08-11-2004, 05:53 PM

No, sir. Gore won, Bush lost.

Did not!

In Florida, anyway. But that's not the point -- the point is that the legislature, purely for partisan purposes, was willing to ignore little details like the actual vote count. You think that's a "reasonable solution"? This must be some new meaning of the term "reasonable" I wasn't familiar with. And if a constitutional amendment could stop that from ever happening again, then we need it for that reason alone!

That is EXACTLY the point. You assume that there is a perfect system for counting votes. None exists, nor will it ever exist. In the event that the system breaks down, as it did in Florida, it is indeed reasonable to have a back-up plan. You may argue about whether or not the Florida case qualifies, but you cannot argue that there never could be a case when it would.

BrainGlutton

08-11-2004, 06:04 PM

That is EXACTLY the point. You assume that there is a perfect system for counting votes. None exists, nor will it ever exist. In the event that the system breaks down, as it did in Florida, it is indeed reasonable to have a back-up plan. You may argue about whether or not the Florida case qualifies, but you cannot argue that there never could be a case when it would.

No, but I can and do argue that the effort to produce an accurate vote count should always be made, and never short-circuited, as it was in Florida.

As for a "back-up plan" -- see my thread on the idea of a Tribunate -- a separately elected fourth branch of government which would police the other three, and also run the elections, the Census, and post-Census redistricting: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462

John Mace

08-11-2004, 06:13 PM

As for a "back-up plan" -- see my thread on the idea of a Tribunate -- a separately elected fourth branch of government which would police the other three, and also run the elections, the Census, and post-Census redistricting: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462

That still doesn't address the problem of no being able to determine the outcome in time. Does the "Tribunate" decide? No, it has to be the state.

Blalron

08-11-2004, 06:20 PM

That still doesn't address the problem of no being able to determine the outcome in time. Does the "Tribunate" decide? No, it has to be the state.

If the state has a track record of wrongfully disenfranchising voters, this is like having the fox guard the henhouse.

Lemur866

08-11-2004, 06:21 PM

Yes, but if citizens of Florida don't like the way elections are held in Florida, they are perfectly free to change it. I don't see how allowing felons to vote would have made much difference in Florida. Or rather, I don't see how allowing felons to vote would make much difference in a future situation analgous to the 2000 presidential election. People bumped off the voting lists because they were felons or thought to be felons only made a difference because the vote count was so close in that jurisdiction. Another very close vote, only this time with felons, would still be a very close vote, and wouldn't make it easier to count all the votes.

Florida was only important because the election there was very very close, and the electoral vote was close enough that whoever won Florida would win the election.

If we assume a future election (this time allowing felons) that was very close, allowing felons wouldn't make the election any more decidable, or any less likely to be very close. The election in Florida was so close that ANY sort of tweaks you might make in the voting procedure would have given the state to one candidate or the other. But tweaking the voting laws such that Gore would win if the Florida election were held again is no guarantee that (say) democrats would be more likely to win future elections, or that future elections would not be close.

If an election is so close that it isn't decidable by the election officials, allowing the State legislature to choose the slate of electors doesn't seem any more wrong than flipping a coin. If the state legislature makes a choice that the electorate finds unfair they can vote the bastards out in the next election, or recall them.

You want to avoid more Florida debacles, I understand that. But changing the electoral laws so the Florida election wouldn't have been so close doesn't make a future debacle less likely.

John Mace

08-11-2004, 06:24 PM

If the state has a track record of wrongfully disenfranchising voters, this is like having the fox guard the henhouse.

What is your solution if there simply is no way to decide the winner of a given election in time? It's easy to say that it should never happen-- I agree with that.

John Mace

08-11-2004, 06:33 PM

If an election is so close that it isn't decidable by the election officials, allowing the State legislature to choose the slate of electors doesn't seem any more wrong than flipping a coin.

I assume that not what you really mean, and that shouldn't be the measure of the reasonableness of the solution. The legistature represents the people, a coin represents only chance.

Blalron

08-11-2004, 06:57 PM

Yes, but if citizens of Florida don't like the way elections are held in Florida, they are perfectly free to change it.

To quote Justice Jackson in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The right to vote itself should be an unalienable right, not subject to a simple popular vote. I can't fathom how anybody could disagree with this.

Blalron

08-12-2004, 02:22 AM

With all the proposed amendments floating around lately that would take away rights (the anti-gay marriage and anti-flag burning amendments namely) a new amendment that actually gives new rights would be a refreshing development.

Blalron

08-12-2004, 02:39 AM

I don't find the "states rights" argument very persuasive. What about human rights? You know, humans, the individuals who live under the social contract of government and should have a say in how the government that lords over them is run?

BrainGlutton

08-12-2004, 11:30 AM

That still doesn't address the problem of no being able to determine the outcome in time. Does the "Tribunate" decide? No, it has to be the state.

No, John, the way I conceive the system the Tribunate would decide -- that is, the Tribunate would be the agency that would count the ballots and certify the results; but in case of any doubt -- or a deadlock on its ten-member board (I chose an even number on purpose) -- its decision would be subject to judicial review.

There would be a Federal Tribunate and state tribunates. The state tribunates would run, and count votes for, all elections to state and local offices. The Federal Tribunate would run, and count votes for, all elections to federal offices, including the House, the Senate, and the presidency.

Ravenman

08-12-2004, 11:56 AM

I guess I just don't understand the problem that this constitutional amendment is intended to fix. begbert2 brought it up in his third post, but apparently the question has been dodged.

Are there adults who are being denied the vote because of some constitutional loophole? (I'm excepting felons for the moment -- let's just keep this on law abiding folks for a minute.)

In other words, who is getting screwed by the Constitution when it comes to voting rights?

Bricker

08-12-2004, 12:22 PM

To quote Justice Jackson in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE:The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
The right to vote itself should be an unalienable right, not subject to a simple popular vote. I can't fathom how anybody could disagree with this.

Justice Jackson mentions liberty as a fundamental right, yet you acknowledge (I presume) that conviction of a felony may deprive a person of liberty. Yet you seem oblivious to this concept when addressing the right to vote. In fact, even fundamental rights may be denied or abridged by the government as long as due process is observed. I have a right to property, but if I owe money to a creditor, the government may, after observing due process in its finding, come in and seize and sell my property to satisfy my debt. I have a right to life, but after due process is observed in finding me guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, I may be put to death. No right, not even the ones on that list, are absolute.

- Rick

BwanaBob

08-12-2004, 12:24 PM

Oh please.

These crocodile tears being shed for poor felons makes me laugh. You'd allow vicious unthinking scum to vote only because you think they'd vote for your party.

I'm thrilled that felons are denied the vote; hell I'd like to see them permanently denied the vote in every state. Why? To be able to vote is a most precious commodity and people who prey on society shouldn't be allowed to have a say in how this nation is run, or what laws are enacted. The fact that people knowingly commit felonies, despite the risk of losing their voter privileges, shows that they cannot make a rational decision. I don't want them voting. Do institutionalized people vote? I'd strike them from the voter lists too.

furt

08-12-2004, 02:07 PM

These crocodile tears being shed for poor felons makes me laugh. You'd allow vicious unthinking scum to vote only because you think they'd vote for your party.The vast majority of felons are non-violent. Argue as you wish, but describing someone busted for selling nickel bags of pot to his roommates as "vicious unthinking scum" seems a bit over the top.

BG, I still have no idea what an "election performance standard" is. Does it have to do with turnout? With accuracy of the vote-counting (measured how and by whom)? Please be concrete.

You say that if your state fails to meet that standard in an election of course the election could be challenged. That is the point.Does this not invite a lawsuit after every close election?

If the time frame goes like this:
1 Election
2 Loser claims that the "standards" were not met
3 Winner defends process
4 Court or some other body investigates: soliciting testimony, investigating equpment, etc.
5 Court renders decision

The above would take, at a minimum, weeks, possibly months, in which government is paralyzed (in general, not a bad thing IMO, but sometimes you have things like wars going on).

If the tribunal rules in favor of the winner, I suppose we're done. But if they rule that the "standards" were indeed violated, we now either have:

A) A whole new election
B) The "Tribunal" will declare a new winner.

If B, we can expect the winner-now-loser's suppporters to insist that the Tribunal was politically motivated, that they were disenfranchised when the initial results were ignored, etc. All the same stuff that happened after 2000. If the Tribunal's decison can be appealed, it will be, every time, going as far as the supreme court. All of this takes more and more time.

It all comes down to two obvious truths:

1) When you're talking about millions of votes, there is no 100% foolproof system. None. We can improve it, yes, but it will never be perfect, and if you recount a hundred times, you'll get a hundred different totals. Most of the time, the margin of victory is not within the margin of error.

2) When the vote is excruciatingly close, someone -- be it the courts, the state legislature, congress or your tribunal -- has to be empowered to decide which tally to choose from.

That someone will have a partisan interest: thinking it will ever be otherwise, especially in a presidential election, is simply naive in the extreme. If your tribunal is "bipartisan" it will be tied 5-5 more often than not. If its decison can be appealed, it will be. At the end of the day, people will want whichever tiebreaker -- be it the state or federal SC, the legislatures or the executive branch -- works to their advantage.

And if the positions had been reversed in Florida 2000, that would be Rick Santorum's legislation, not Jesse Jr's.

John Mace

08-12-2004, 02:23 PM

There would be a Federal Tribunate and state tribunates. The state tribunates would run, and count votes for, all elections to state and local offices. The Federal Tribunate would run, and count votes for, all elections to federal offices, including the House, the Senate, and the presidency.

I don't see the advantage of this over the courts deciding. You claim the "Tribunate" is supposed to be non-political, but I can't see how it will be any less political than the Supreme court.

BrainGlutton

08-12-2004, 02:30 PM

Are there adults who are being denied the vote because of some constitutional loophole? (I'm excepting felons for the moment -- let's just keep this on law abiding folks for a minute.)

In other words, who is getting screwed by the Constitution when it comes to voting rights?

Well, for one thing, some people think they have registered but when they go to the polls they find their names aren't on the lost. For another, there are a lot of people who are allowed to vote but whose votes are not counted. In both cases, most of them are black. From "Vanishing Votes" by Greg Palast, The Nation, April 29, 2004 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast):

If you're black, voting in America is a game of chance. First, there's the chance your registration card will simply be thrown out. Millions of minority citizens registered to vote using what are called motor-voter forms. And Republicans know it. You would not be surprised to learn that the Commission on Civil Rights found widespread failures to add these voters to the registers. My sources report piles of dust-covered applications stacked up in election offices.

Second, once registered, there's the chance you'll be named a felon. In Florida, besides those fake felons on Harris's scrub sheets, some 600,000 residents are legally barred from voting because they have a criminal record in the state. That's one state. In the entire nation 1.4 million black men with sentences served can't vote, 13 percent of the nation's black male population.

At step three, the real gambling begins. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed African-Americans the right to vote--but it did not guarantee the right to have their ballots counted. And in one in seven cases, they aren't.

Take Gadsden County. Of Florida's sixty-seven counties, Gadsden has the highest proportion of black residents: 58 percent. It also has the highest "spoilage" rate, that is, ballots tossed out on technicalities: one in eight votes cast but not counted. Next door to Gadsden is white-majority Leon County, where virtually every vote is counted (a spoilage rate of one in 500).

How do votes spoil? Apparently, any old odd mark on a ballot will do it. In Gadsden, some voters wrote in Al Gore instead of checking his name. Their votes did not count.

Harvard law professor Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Commission on Civil Rights, didn't like the smell of all those spoiled ballots. He dug into the pile of tossed ballots and, deep in the commission's official findings, reported this: 14.4 percent of black votes--one in seven--were "invalidated," i.e., never counted. By contrast, only 1.6 percent of nonblack voters' ballots were spoiled.

Florida's electorate is 11 percent African-American. Florida refused to count 179,855 spoiled ballots. A little junior high school algebra applied to commission numbers indicates that 54 percent, or 97,000, of the votes "spoiled" were cast by black folk, of whom more than 90 percent chose Gore. The nonblack vote divided about evenly between Gore and Bush. Therefore, had Harris allowed the counting of these ballots, Al Gore would have racked up a plurality of about 87,000 votes in Florida--162 times Bush's official margin of victory.

That's Florida. Now let's talk about America. In the 2000 election, 1.9 million votes cast were never counted. Spoiled for technical reasons, like writing in Gore's name, machine malfunctions and so on. The reasons for ballot rejection vary, but there's a suspicious shading to the ballots tossed into the dumpster. Edley's team of Harvard experts discovered that just as in Florida, the number of ballots spoiled was--county by county, precinct by precinct--in direct proportion to the local black voting population.

Florida's racial profile mirrors the nation's--both in the percentage of voters who are black and the racial profile of the voters whose ballots don't count. "In 2000, a black voter in Florida was ten times as likely to have their vote spoiled--not counted--as a white voter," explains political scientist Philip Klinkner, co-author of Edley's Harvard report. "National figures indicate that Florida is, surprisingly, typical. Given the proportion of nonwhite to white voters in America, then, it appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the USA, as many as 1 million votes, were cast by nonwhite voters."

So there you have it. In the last presidential election, approximately 1 million black and other minorities voted, and their ballots were thrown away. And they will be tossed again in November 2004, efficiently, by computer--because HAVA and other bogus reform measures, stressing reform through complex computerization, do not address, and in fact worsen, the racial bias of the uncounted vote.

I'm not saying federal oversight of the registration, voting, and ballot-counting processes, would produce a perfect system, but I'm certain it would be more nearly perfect, and just, and accurate, than what we've got now.

Blalron

08-12-2004, 03:02 PM

Justice Jackson mentions liberty as a fundamental right, yet you acknowledge (I presume) that conviction of a felony may deprive a person of liberty. Yet you seem oblivious to this concept when addressing the right to vote. In fact, even fundamental rights may be denied or abridged by the government as long as due process is observed. I have a right to property, but if I owe money to a creditor, the government may, after observing due process in its finding, come in and seize and sell my property to satisfy my debt.

On the other hand, the government can't castrate me. No amount of "process" can be "due" to permit ball cutting. It's simply not done. It's not even contemplated. Your right to bodily integrity is that sacred. So too should the right to vote.

I have a right to life, but after due process is observed in finding me guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime, I may be put to death. No right, not even the ones on that list, are absolute. - Rick

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is under all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a due process violation, I respectfully disagree.

furt

08-12-2004, 03:32 PM

On the other hand, the government can't castrate me. No amount of "process" can be "due" to permit ball cutting. It's simply not done. It's not even contemplated.The next best thing. (http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-97/04-27-97/a09wn032.htm)

Blalron

08-12-2004, 05:12 PM

Oh please.

These crocodile tears being shed for poor felons makes me laugh. You'd allow vicious unthinking scum to vote only because you think they'd vote for your party

I for one know an ex-convict, and let me say that although she may be an obnoxious bitch, she is not vicious unthinking scum.

Let me further add that the value of a citizen should not be predicated upon the worse actions that they have committed. It may be tempting for some to freeze frame someone at the moment after they committed a bad act and refuse to see them as anything else other than unfeeling and unthinking scum. That rarely encapsulates the totality of any individual. Such black and white thinking is seldom accurate.

BrainGlutton

08-12-2004, 05:20 PM

I don't see the advantage of this over the courts deciding. You claim the "Tribunate" is supposed to be non-political, but I can't see how it will be any less political than the Supreme court.

Read my thread -- I do not conceive of the Tribunate as being or even pretending to be non-political; to the contrary it would be openly and aggressively political. I envision a ten-member College of Tribunes elected on a partisan basis, in a national (or statewide) election using the party-list form of proportional representation. That might (conceivably) produce a College with three Republicans, three Democrats, a Libertarian, a Green, an America Firster (populist-isolationist conservative), a Constitutioner (religious conservative). The point of this is that each Tribune would have independent investigative and authority and, according to party alignment, each would have a rather different idea of what constitutes "abuse" or "misbehavior" on the part of government. Which means nothing that might possibly be abuse or misbehavior would go uninvestigated. A decision to actually prosecute or indict a government official, on the other hand, would have to be made by majority vote of the whole College.

Applying this to elections: The point is not that the Tribunes are non-political but that they are a specialized branch that handles "metagovernmental" functions such as government-policing, the Census, and elections, and nothing else. Being separated from the public-policy-formation concerns of the legislative and executive branches, the Tribunes could focus their attention more clearly on questions of electoral law and procedure. And, as I said, their decisions would be subject to judicial review -- meaning that, in the event of a very close count or some evidence of vote-rigging, an aggrieved losing party would have the option of challenging the Tribunate's decision in the courts, which are (supposed to be) non-political. Checks and balances.

What's the alternative? In Florida in 2000, each county elections office was under the control of one elected Supervisor of Elections, either Democrat or Republican; and the whole statewide system was under the supervision of the elected Secretary of State -- in that year, Katherine Harris, a Republican. And we saw how that turned out . . . Since then the office of Secretary of State has been made an appointed one -- appointed by the Governor, which means she is even more likely to be of the Governor's party than when she was an elected official. No improvement, in my view. Putting the whole thing under the control of a multimember and multipartisan body is, in my view, a better way to go.

BwanaBob

08-13-2004, 06:17 AM

I for one know an ex-convict, and let me say that although she may be an obnoxious bitch, she is not vicious unthinking scum.

Let me further add that the value of a citizen should not be predicated upon the worse actions that they have committed. It may be tempting for some to freeze frame someone at the moment after they committed a bad act and refuse to see them as anything else other than unfeeling and unthinking scum. That rarely encapsulates the totality of any individual. Such black and white thinking is seldom accurate.

I consider felons "unthinking" because they commit the crime despite risking losing their ability to vote. It has nothing to do with whether the crime is marginally a felony or not. One must deal with the laws as they stand. Selling a pound of pot to friends is a felony. If you have a brain you have to realize that doing this and being caught has dire consequences.

And as an aside, I get bent out of shape at so called citizens who only vote every
four years and then complain there's some irregularity vis-a-vis their registration.

If you care about your community or country you should vote in EVERY election.
Do that, and chances are your registration will stay on good standing.

Mr2001

08-13-2004, 06:22 AM

These crocodile tears being shed for poor felons makes me laugh. You'd allow vicious unthinking scum to vote only because you think they'd vote for your party.
I'd allow them to vote regardless. I'm pretty sure folks like Ken Lay aren't going to vote Democratic. ;)

I'm thrilled that felons are denied the vote; hell I'd like to see them permanently denied the vote in every state. Why? To be able to vote is a most precious commodity and people who prey on society shouldn't be allowed to have a say in how this nation is run, or what laws are enacted.
I disagree. Every citizen who's expected to obey the law must be given a say in which laws are enacted. That's the only way for the laws to have any legitimacy.

Mr2001

08-13-2004, 06:27 AM

I consider felons "unthinking" because they commit the crime despite risking losing their ability to vote.
Let's see... felons should lose the right to vote because they're unthinking, and they're unthinking because they lose the right to vote. Fantastic!

Ravenman

08-14-2004, 11:57 AM

Well, for one thing, some people think they have registered but when they go to the polls they find their names aren't on the lost. For another, there are a lot of people who are allowed to vote but whose votes are not counted.

I'm not saying federal oversight of the registration, voting, and ballot-counting processes, would produce a perfect system, but I'm certain it would be more nearly perfect, and just, and accurate, than what we've got now.Right. I know there's problems with vote counting. But what has that got to do with the Constitution? Does the Constitution allow for such racist actions? If so, where?

Put another way, what is the problem with the Constitution that needs to be fixed, as opposed to what is the problem with how votes are counted that needs to be fixed?

BrainGlutton

08-14-2004, 12:29 PM

Right. I know there's problems with vote counting. But what has that got to do with the Constitution? Does the Constitution allow for such racist actions? If so, where?

Put another way, what is the problem with the Constitution that needs to be fixed, as opposed to what is the problem with how votes are counted that needs to be fixed?

The problem is that the Constitution leaves the whole business up to the states, and that produces the results we see. Any instance of throwing out a black's vote because he/she is black would be unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting Rights Act -- if it could be both identified and proven. Reread that excerpt from Palast's article and try to imagine how you, if you were a black resident of one of those predominantly black counties where for some reason an extraordinarily large number of ballots are discarded as "spoiled," would even begin to try to address the problem.

Many times in the past 40 years, we've been faced with situations where the Supreme Court said this or that state-level segregation practice was unconstitutional but the Southern states continued to get away with ignoring that -- e.g., most Southern schools remained segregated long after the Brown decision. Nothing really got fixed until the federal government decided to step in.

A voting-rights amendment could, among other things, clearly and explicitly make the vote-counting process the federal government's business. I think a federal election agency could do the job better -- even if it were not actually running the polls but just acting in a supervisory role over the county and state elections officials.

2sense

08-14-2004, 01:23 PM

The problem I have with Balron's proposed amendment is that it doesn't go far enough. If we are going to the trouble of amending our Constitution we should do it right. Why guarantee a right to vote without eliminating the Electoral College which denies individuals the right to vote for the most powerful "elective" position of them all, the Presidency? Why remove the proscription on electing 18 year olds to the presidency but still not allow the electorate the right to choose whomever they wish even if the candidate was born in another country or ( shocked gasp! ) even has already proven their competence by serving honorably for 2 full terms?

The Constitution is littered with partial remedies for its original undemocratic character. The OP even lists a few. It seems to me that we don't need any more half measures.
-

States don't have the ability to verify a person's eligibility to vote if he or she can register on the day of the election. I see no reason that a person shouldn't be required to register to vote several weeks before an election. Any standard of identification that can qualify a person a few weeks before the election can be used on the day of the election just as well. For the rest we have provisional voting. The person claiming to be eligible can cast a ballot to be held seperate from the rest until the claim can be verified or refuted. Did you know that North Dakota doesn't register voters at all? Everyone who votes at the polls has to be able to demonstrate their eligibility. Of course that's North Dakota where it can usually be done by saying, "Hey Bill, gimme my ballot and how are Alice and the kids?"

Firstly, a driver's license is most definitely not proof of citizenship. We currently have no national ID card, so you'd have to implement that. Eligibility is determined by residency not just citizenship. Since the Moter Voter Law requires states to attempt to register residents when issuing drivers licenses the state already has to determine eligibility. The drivers license wouldn't show you are a citizen it would just show that you are you.
-

Very few states allow same-day voter registration. In fact, so far as I know, no state allows it. I have already noted the situation of North Dakota. The oft cited Vanishing Voter by Thomas Patterson states that Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow same day registration. According to Patterson registration is a large barrier to electoral participation. He says there are studies showing that registered Americans vote at similar rates as European voters where the burden of registration is taken up by the state and not placed on the individual. He also cites Who Votes? by Wolfinger and Stone as estimating that turnout could increase as much as nine percent by relaxing registration requirements. ( It should be noted that that book came out before the Moter Voter Law. )
-

There's still a huge potential for abuse here, with absolutely zero recourse for those disenfranchised to get their vote back. What's to stop them from reinstating the old requirement that you must own land to vote? We are. The people act as a check on their leaders by denying support to the ones who are seen as going too far. No competent politician will promote restricting the franchise to propertyholders. As Lemur866 says, if we fall into fascism it won't matter what the Constitution says anyways. No paper check will stop the government from limiting the franchise if they have popular support.
-

I have several problems with this, first an foremost being fraud. If you had the power to walk up register and vote on election day, what's to keep you from going from poll to poll demanding your right to vote? Granted you could catch the wrong doer(s) afterwards of course requiring a validation of the election, I also concede that there may be some technological way to ocercome this flaw, but damn if I can see it. BrainGlutton's idea of using ink to mark voters would work. Or just entering each person's name and address into a database as they vote. Here is where provisional voting could come in handy if there is any doubt about elgibility.
-

And here is the nub of the issue. Currently the constitution allows states to set their own voting standards, within certain limits. All states must have republican governments, all states have to have an 18 year minimum, all states must allow women to vote, no states can require a religious test, no state can have racial tests, and so forth.

Other than that it is up to the states. I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case. Article 1, Section 4 (http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm#1.4): "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." ( bolding mine )

The federal government has jurisdiction over federal elections which is how we have things like the Moter Voter Law. If Congress decides felons shouldn't be denied the vote they could just pass a law requiring states to include felons. This wouldn't effect local and state elections directly but what state wants the trouble and expense of maintaining multiple voting lists and practices? Not many so such a law, or the promise of such legislation, could well encourage Congress to propose and states to ratify a constitutional amendment enfranchising felons. This is essentially how the amendment enfranchising 18 year olds got passed. Without the threat of simple legislation to accomplish the goal the 26th Amendment might have shared the fate of the ERA.

Yes, but if citizens of Florida don't like the way elections are held in Florida, they are perfectly free to change it. I don't see how allowing felons to vote would have made much difference in Florida. Or rather, I don't see how allowing felons to vote would make much difference in a future situation analgous to the 2000 presidential election. People bumped off the voting lists because they were felons or thought to be felons only made a difference because the vote count was so close in that jurisdiction. Another very close vote, only this time with felons, would still be a very close vote, and wouldn't make it easier to count all the votes. Enfranchising felons isn't intended to make elections easy to count. The reason for elections is to allow the people to pick the leaders. Felons are people too. Enfranchising felons would help elections more accurately reflect the will of the people.
-

Captain Amazing

08-15-2004, 12:11 PM

Enfranchising felons isn't intended to make elections easy to count. The reason for elections is to allow the people to pick the leaders. Felons are people too. Enfranchising felons would help elections more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Yeah, but a lot of people don't want elections to more accurately reflect the will of convicted criminals. :) It seems to me that if you're convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.

BrainGlutton

08-15-2004, 12:21 PM

Yeah, but a lot of people don't want elections to more accurately reflect the will of convicted criminals. :) It seems to me that if you're convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.

Elections, Captain, are the time when the people are supposed to judge the government, not the other way around. And convicts remain people -- and remain citizens, if they were citizens prior to conviction.

2sense

08-15-2004, 01:04 PM

Yeah, but a lot of people don't want elections to more accurately reflect the will of convicted criminals. :) It seems to me that if you're convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.

BrainGlutton stole my line!

Well, at the risk of being called a pussy by the Vice President I'm sensitive to that kind of feeling. I can see the benefits of putting a muzzle on evil old Richard Mellon Scaife. But I think silencing political dissent is always a bad idea. I'm sorry conservatives don't see it that way.

It seems to me more and more the Republican Party are turning into the Federalists. At the risk of promoting the political paranoia so prevelent these days ( and so reminiscent of those ) I'm almost expecting some new Alien and Sedition Acts.
-

Blalron

08-15-2004, 03:43 PM

Yeah, but a lot of people don't want elections to more accurately reflect the will of convicted criminals. :) It seems to me that if you're convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.

Doesn't that send the message to convicts that no matter how hard they try, no matter how good of citizens they may become in the future, no matter how diligently they pay their taxes, they are forever punished for their mistakes? How does that help in the rehabilitation process?

Blalron

08-15-2004, 03:50 PM

Also remember that what is or is not a crime can be an evolving paradigm. Having sex with a 17 year old may lock you behind bars in one state, and in another state right next to it may be perfectly okay.

If the majority of people wish to change the law, then the law should be changed. If you are afraid that lettings convicts vote will tip the balance, perhaps the balance should be tipped. No matter how you spin it, preventing majority rule from taking place by segregating convicts from the political process is undemocratic.

Captain Amazing

08-15-2004, 10:38 PM

Doesn't that send the message to convicts that no matter how hard they try, no matter how good of citizens they may become in the future, no matter how diligently they pay their taxes, they are forever punished for their mistakes? How does that help in the rehabilitation process?

They're not allowed to have guns, either, so it's not like losing the right to vote is the only thing that happens to ex-felons. It's not a matter of being afraid that convicts voting will tip the balance and get whatever law repealed. It's that they've chosen to commit a felony...they've chosen to break the rules of the society in a major way, and by doing so, shown that they're not worthy, so to speak, of participating in civil society.

2sense

08-16-2004, 12:06 AM

They're not allowed to have guns, either, so it's not like losing the right to vote is the only thing that happens to ex-felons.

Has anyone said it was? We are discussing the right to have a voice in how things work.

It's not a matter of being afraid that convicts voting will tip the balance and get whatever law repealed. It's that they've chosen to commit a felony...they've chosen to break the rules of the society in a major way, and by doing so, shown that they're not worthy, so to speak, of participating in civil society.That's just what the white South African government thought about Mandela.

If felons are not worthy of rejoining society after they have served their time then why are they not kept in prison or deported? Do you really believe that felons no longer deserve to be Americans?
-

Blalron

08-16-2004, 02:08 AM

they've chosen to break the rules of the society in a major way, and by doing so, shown that they're not worthy, so to speak, of participating in civil society.

So tell me, who makes these rules, and where do the rulemakers get their authority from?

DrDeth

08-16-2004, 02:52 AM

Can we also tag on a little "And the second Tuesday of November shall forthwith be declared a National Holiday" to that?

Won't work. I think it was tried before in some juristictions, and dudes just went away for 'the Holiday" and voting decreased. There is some rule about Government employees getting up to 4 hours Admin leave if they can show they need it to vote. But now- with longer pollong place hours, no one shoudl have a problem.

Captain Amazing

08-16-2004, 10:53 AM

Has anyone said it was? We are discussing the right to have a voice in how things work.

Blalron said that by denying the vote to ex-felons, we're sending them a message that they're forever to be punished for their mistakes, and I was just pointing out that losing the franchise isn't the only thing that happens to ex-felons.

That's just what the white South African government thought about Mandela.

We're not South Africa, and most felons aren't Nelson Mandela.

If felons are not worthy of rejoining society after they have served their time then why are they not kept in prison or deported? Do you really believe that felons no longer deserve to be Americans?
-

Of course they deserve to be Americans, and of course they're worthy of rejoinging society. I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying they should be deported. I am saying that they shouldn't vote. Voting should be the prerogative of the law-abiding citizen. And in those places where ex-felons can't vote, they made the choice to commit the crime that they knew, or should have known, took away their vote. It's their own fault.

Mr2001

08-16-2004, 04:52 PM

We're not South Africa, and most felons aren't Nelson Mandela.
So, how do you propose to distinguish the felons who are comparable to him from the ones who aren't?

Of course they deserve to be Americans, and of course they're worthy of rejoinging society. I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying they should be deported. I am saying that they shouldn't vote.
What's the point of being an American if you can't vote? What could possibly be more basic to the spirit of this country than the ability to choose your rulers?

Voting should be the prerogative of the law-abiding citizen. And in those places where ex-felons can't vote, they made the choice to commit the crime that they knew, or should have known, took away their vote. It's their own fault.
Couldn't that logic excuse any punishment, no matter how cruel, as long as would-be criminals are told about it in advance? If you get whipped or castrated for committing a crime - hey, you knew it would happen, so it's your own fault and there's no need to change it.

2sense

08-16-2004, 09:54 PM

We're not South Africa, and most felons aren't Nelson Mandela. Are you serious? You would support a policy even though it disenfranchises SOME Nelson Madelas? That's mighty white of you.

Of course they deserve to be Americans, and of course they're worthy of rejoinging society. I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying they should be deported. No you are just saying that they should remain second class citizens. Less than full Americans.

Voting should be the prerogative of the law-abiding citizen. And in those places where ex-felons can't vote, they made the choice to commit the crime that they knew, or should have known, took away their vote. It's their own fault. Have you ever been to the ghetto? Do you have any idea what growing up poor and hopeless does to a person? I'm not saying we should excuse individual rapists and murderers but we are discussing the entire group. Why do you suppose that blacks and latinos are far more likely to be convicted of a felony? Is there some racial defect in minorities?
-

Captain Amazing

08-17-2004, 11:43 AM

Are you serious? You would support a policy even though it disenfranchises SOME Nelson Madelas? That's mighty white of you.

The US, unlike South Africa, isn't in the habit of convicting peaceful political protestors of felonies. The Nelson Mandela situation just doesn't come up here.

No you are just saying that they should remain second class citizens. Less than full Americans.

I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections. If you consider that making them "less than full Americans", then that's your interpretation.

Have you ever been to the ghetto? Do you have any idea what growing up poor and hopeless does to a person? I'm not saying we should excuse individual rapists and murderers but we are discussing the entire group. Why do you suppose that blacks and latinos are far more likely to be convicted of a felony? Is there some racial defect in minorities?

I know that poverty increases the crime rate, but remember, most poor people don't commit crimes. As for why blacks and latinos are more likely to be convicted of a crime, part of that is because of poverty, and part of it is racial bias. There are discrepencies in sentencing and in convictions. All of that needs to be changed, and I'm not going to disagree with you there. I also don't like your implication that I'm a racist,

Mr2001

08-17-2004, 01:32 PM

The US, unlike South Africa, isn't in the habit of convicting peaceful political protestors of felonies. The Nelson Mandela situation just doesn't come up here.
Peaceful? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela)
In 1961 he became the commander of the ANC's armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe ("Spear of the Nation", or MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets and made plans for possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid.

Captain Amazing

08-17-2004, 01:59 PM

Peaceful? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela)

At any rate, it's not like the South African government took away his right to vote...he never had it in the first place. And we, unlike Apartheid South Africa, don't disenfranchise about 70% of our population. This is a red herring.

Mr2001

08-17-2004, 06:06 PM

At any rate, it's not like the South African government took away his right to vote...he never had it in the first place. And we, unlike Apartheid South Africa, don't disenfranchise about 70% of our population. This is a red herring.
Somewhere around 15% of black men are unable to vote due to felonies, according to what I've read. Just what percentage of the population is it OK to disenfranchise?

2sense

08-17-2004, 11:13 PM

The US, unlike South Africa, isn't in the habit of convicting peaceful political protestors of felonies. The Nelson Mandela situation just doesn't come up here. There are political prisoners in America; Dr Kevorkian comes to mind. He didn't attack anyone. He stood up for what he believed in and the government convicted him of felonies. He gave up his freedom for his dissent. Should he lose his political rights as well?

I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections. If you consider that making them "less than full Americans", then that's your interpretation. Clearly that is my interpretation. Since you didn't dispute it should I assume you consider it indisputable? Somehow I doubt it. In any case since they don't have the same rights as everyone else surely you must admit they are 2nd class citizens, right?

I know that poverty increases the crime rate, but remember, most poor people don't commit crimes. As for why blacks and latinos are more likely to be convicted of a crime, part of that is because of poverty, and part of it is racial bias. There are discrepencies in sentencing and in convictions. All of that needs to be changed, and I'm not going to disagree with you there. This puzzles me. You understand that the behavior of the group is affected by factors outside their control and yet you still place the entire blame for the behavior on the group. If some of the fault is due to the world around them then what sense does it make to remove their ability to alter that world via the electoral process?

I also don't like your implication that I'm a racist, I didn't imply but if you inferred and that spurred you to think about my objections to your position then my purpose was well served. I wasn't trying to make you look like anything. I wanted you to look at something. Namely that the policy you favor locks the racial disparities of American society into the electorate.
-