# Does the U.S. Constitution need a "Right to Vote" Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668 "2013-07-04T21:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/1 "2013-07-04T21:55:28Z")
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. [John Nichols writes in _The Nation:_](http://www.thenation.com/blog/174968/scotus-voting-rights-act-decision-means-we-need-right-vote-amendment#axzz2Y3ZVMf55) > [@](#): > > \*\*SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision Means We Need ‘Right to Vote’ Amendment > > _John Nichols on June 25, 2013 - 11:13 AM ET_\*\* > > What the US Supreme Court has done, with its decision to strike down essential elements of the Voting Rights Act, is wrong. > > But the Court has not gone so rogue as might immediately seem to be the case in a nation that our civics teachers tell us is committed to democratic values. > > Rather, the Court’s conservative majority has taken advantage of a gap in the Constitution that must be addressed. > > \ > > The Court’s ruling emphasizes a little-noted reality: that the United States does not, in the most fundamental sense, protect the right to vote. > > Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been making this point for years. He emphasized during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.” > > Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that. > > The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, in May unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution. [From FairVote:](http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=205) > [@](#): > > **A Constitutional Right to Vote** > > The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists. > > The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution. > > Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal. > > In November 2004: > •At least 1.2 million Americans voted incorrectly because of poor ballot design. > •Due to inconsistent and unequal provisional ballot counting policies, 500,000 votes or 30% of all provisional ballots cast were never counted. In Delaware only 6% were counted while 97% of those cast in Alaska were counted. > •Americans did not receive absentee ballots in time to return them on Election Day. In Broward County, Florida 58,000 absentee ballots were not delivered on time. > •Hundreds of thousands had difficulties registering to vote. Partisan voter registration organizations “lost” voter registration forms, leaving an untold number of eligible voters unregistered. > •Minorities and students experienced higher levels of voter intimidation and harassment than other groups. > •Over 1,100 voting machines malfunctioned. In North Carolina a voting machine lost 4500 votes, which should have required a revote in one state election; however, partisan politics prevented citizens from having an opportunity to make their voices heard. > •In Washington, the governor’s race required three recounts and was decided by less than 200 votes. Questions remain regarding votes that were lost and then discovered. Provisional ballots may have been counted as normal ballots and potentially ineligible voters cast ballots. > •More than nine million American citizens are denied the same right to vote that they would enjoy if living in another part of the country. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they reach voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their Commander in Chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet the more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress. > > The addition of a Right to Vote Amendment to the U.S Constitution would: > •Guarantee the right of every citizen 18 and over to vote > •Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards for all states to follow > •Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters > •Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly > > Many reforms are needed to solve the electoral problems we continue to experience every election cycle. The first is providing a solid foundation upon which these reforms can be made. This solid foundation is an amendment that clearly protects an affirmative right to vote for every U.S. citizen. > > Support H.J. Res. 28, the proposed amendment to add a right to vote. [[Read the Amendment]](http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=214) > [@](#): > > \*\*Text of House Joint Resolution Res. 28, The Right to Vote Amendment > > JOINT RESOLUTION\*\* > > Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote. > > 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: > > **`Article –** > > `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. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/2 "2013-07-04T23:29:41Z")
I’m not 100% on the wording. But I do agree that voting should be a constitutional right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/3 "2013-07-04T23:59:11Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/4 "2013-07-05T00:26:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I’m sure they once said that about women’s suffrage. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is this an academic exercise? No, it is a bill in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/5 "2013-07-05T00:37:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m sure they once said that about women’s suffrage. 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. > [@](#): > > No, it is a bill in Congress. 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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/6 "2013-07-05T01:07:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/7 "2013-07-05T01:12:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m sure they once said that about women’s suffrage. > > No, it is a bill in Congress. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/8 "2013-07-05T01:14:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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? 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.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/9 "2013-07-05T01:19:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/10 "2013-07-05T02:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I think we should. Why? What would change? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/11 "2013-07-05T02:33:45Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/12 "2013-07-05T03:18:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. Congress already has that authority: > [@US Constitution](#): > > Section. 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 chusing [sic] Senators. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/13 "2013-07-05T03:21:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/14 "2013-07-05T03:24:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I agree. But you could incorporate a criminal exception like the Thirteenth Amendment has. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/15 "2013-07-05T03:35:18Z")
I’m looking at the other voting amendments as a model. > [@](#): > > 15: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > [@](#): > > 19: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. > > Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > [@](#): > > 24: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > [@](#): > > 26: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So I’d say we could just enact a general Right to Vote amendment based on these models. > [@](#): > > Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/16 "2013-07-05T04:44:01Z")
Can a state verify that a voter is a citizen of the United States by checking identification? ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/17 "2013-07-05T05:02:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/18 "2013-07-05T05:05:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. > [From FairVote:](http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=205) > > > [@](#): > > > > •In Washington, the governor’s race required three recounts and was decided by less than 200 votes. Questions remain regarding votes that were lost and then discovered. Provisional ballots may have been counted as normal ballots and potentially ineligible voters cast ballots. Potentially ineligible voters cast ballots? Thanks for finally admitting it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/19 "2013-07-05T05:11:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/20 "2013-07-05T05:15:49Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > It’s really not though. > Voting is a privilege and a responsibility, it’s not a right. Then why are there four amendments that explicitly refer to the right to vote? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668.md?page=2)