The U.S. Constitution provides that one cannot be denied the vote for certain enumerated reasons – but, nowhere is voting positively affirmed as a constitutional right.
Some Americans want to change that. I think we should.
I’m not 100% on the wording. But I do agree that voting should be a constitutional right.
Don’t know if it’s needed or not, but I don’t see the requisite number of states needed to ratify this agreeing to surrender their sovereignty on this issue to the feds. Especially with the feds breathing down their necks every 4 years.
Is this an academic exercise?
I’m sure they once said that about women’s suffrage.
No, it is a bill in Congress.
Maybe. But this isn’t like women’s suffrage. Or lowering the voting age to 18. This is a huge intrusion into what is now a state matter.
It’s a proposed Constitutional Amendment, which requires ratification by the states. You are going to sit here and tell us that enough states will be willing to ratify that thing?
The proposed amendment would not actually provide a shield against the sort of harassment that a few Republicans have proposed. It would be no big deal to argue that a photo ID was “Narrowly tailored” for “efficient voting.” Even if that was a crock of shit, one would have to produce the notes from a GOP meeting in which they rubbed their hands and cackled over keeping out the riff-raff before you would sway the current SCOTUS to rule against such a rule based on the proposed amendment.
We already have three amendments prohibiting states from disenfranchising voters based on race, former servitude, sex, and age–all barriers that were consistent with society at the time of the founding. I am not sure that there are any further barriers that would not already be struck down by the Supreme Court, (even this Supreme Court), so I am not sure what this amendment proposes beyond a feel-good resolution.
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing even a single state voting to ratify this proposed amendment. No state will want to force other states to allow felons to be able to vote.
Eventually, maybe, if the idea gets enough traction among the voters. “Right to Vote Amendment” certainly is a marketable label to start with, the kind of thing you automatically feel like you’re on the defensive arguing against. (Of course, the same was true of the Equal Rights Amendment.)
You mean “the voters” who overwhelming approve of the idea of Voter ID laws?
Please, federal government, come interfere with our voting system every 4 years. The idea is beyond naive.
Why? What would change?
It would give Congress clear constitutional authority to regulate state voting practices, not only to correct past discrimination, but simply to insure fair elections; making it much easier for a controversial measure to withstand a constitutional challenge.
More broadly it would affirm unambiguously that voting is a personal civil right, which ought to be a no-brainer for any democratic-republican constitution.
Congress already has that authority:
Now, one might argue that this doesn’t apply to presidential elections, but no state separates presidential and Congressional elections, and none is likely to do so.
You’ll never get an unambiguous affirmation in an amendment that will pass. As noted already, things like exempting felons would have to be part of any such amendment.
Personally I have no problem with election law being left as a state issue. A constitutional amendment guaranteeing a general right to vote would establish the guideline and then the states could enact their own laws on how to comply with that right. A state election law could be challenged under a Right to Vote Amendment just as state laws can be challenged under other amendments. But it wouldn’t be necessary for Congress to enact a national election law.
I agree. But you could incorporate a criminal exception like the Thirteenth Amendment has.
I’m looking at the other voting amendments as a model.
So I’d say we could just enact a general Right to Vote amendment based on these models.
Can a state verify that a voter is a citizen of the United States by checking identification?
It’s really not though.
Voting is a privilege and a responsibility, it’s not a right.
And I don’t think putting Congress in control is the right answer anyway.
Potentially ineligible voters cast ballots?
Thanks for finally admitting it.
Yes, because a statement that “questions remain” constitutes an admission of fact.
“Questions remain about the Kennedy assassination.”
“So you admit there was a conspiracy.”
Then why are there four amendments that explicitly refer to the right to vote?