# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/101 "2013-07-09T17:31:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Voter ID programs, while not as extreme as either example I gave above, must be judged by this same standard. It’s great if they prevent fraudulent voting. But if they do so at the cost of preventing a larger amount of legitimate voting, they’re a failure. Or a success, depending on the actual intent of the legislation, and we all know what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/102 "2013-07-09T17:57:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Voter ID programs, while not as extreme as either example I gave above, must be judged by this same standard. It’s great if they prevent fraudulent voting. But if they do so at the cost of preventing a larger amount of legitimate voting, they’re a failure. You keep announcing standards like this, as though somehow you have been given permission to declare authoritatively that a particular standard is the one we should use. I don’t agree. I say that the actual standard is: “As long as Voter ID programs do not impose unreasonable hardships as barriers to obtaining ID, they are a success.” If a person has no unreasonable barrier in getting a photo ID, but fails to get one anyway, that does not count as a failure of the system. The difference between my announced standard, and your announced standard, is that mine comports with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and yours is just some shit you wish were true. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/103 "2013-07-09T18:14:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You keep announcing standards like this, as though somehow you have been given permission to declare authoritatively that a particular standard is the one we should use. > > I don’t agree. I say that the actual standard is: “As long as Voter ID programs do not impose unreasonable hardships as barriers to obtaining ID, they are a success.” So discriminatory intent or disciminatory impact means nothing? > [@](#): > > If a person has no unreasonable barrier in getting a photo ID, but fails to get one anyway, that does not count as a failure of the system. This is a silly analogy but… lets say that we made owning (putting aside the poll tax issue) a bottle of hair relaxer a precondition to voting. Would that be OK? Would it matter that hair relaxer is much more available in some neighborhoods than others? Does it matter that black households generally already have hair relaxer in the house and the white folks would all have to go out and get some, perhaps waiting in long lines to do so? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/104 "2013-07-09T18:23:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… > > Joe? not excluded? > Ed? not excluded? > Reba? not excluded? > Charles? not excluded? > Freddie? not excluded? > Ann? not excluded? > Emma? not excluded? > Reese? not excluded? > Florence? not excluded? > Yvette? not excluded? > Renard? not excluded? > Albert? not excluded? > > But all of them, together? Excluded. > > No, sorry, don’t agree. > > And neither do the courts. Well, the courts basically don’t recognize the existence of the field of statistics, so fuck 'em. As far as Joe and Ed and Reba are concerned, you, in your relationship with them, can hold them responsible for their failure to get their ID. Once you have that sort of relationship with, say, 10% of the otherwise eligible voters in this country who lack ID, get back to me. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/105 "2013-07-09T18:53:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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? And this bill just moves the goalposts. It says that every citizen has the right to vote. Okay. Now you’ll have to prove you’re a citizen to vote. What’s that? You don’t have a copy of your birth certificate? You don’t have a passport? Oh some of you will have to spend money to prove you’re a citizen. This is obviously a secret poll tax. 😉 It’s just stupid. It’ll never pass. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/106 "2013-07-09T18:54:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, how can you justify any system short of delivering ballots door to door to every eligible voter and waiting patiently until they find time to vote, then carrying the ballot back to be counted? Anything short of that will have the “flaw” you seem to be concerned about. > > Every time you close a polling station, you risk someone not getting there in time. Every time you require anyone to do anything on his own, you risk having fewer people vote. Absolutely! And I’m not attempting to justify the existing system. It was already here when I got here; the question now is: do we make it better, or do we make it worse? We can make it better in a number of ways, e.g. more opportunities for early voting, especially on evenings and weekends. And we should! Will that bring about perfection? Of course not! Who’s talking about perfection? Not me; apparently my use of a thought experiment has been misinterpreted. The"flaw" I am so concerned about is not that voter IDs will fall short of perfection. I’m not comparing them with perfection; I’m comparing them _with their absence_, IOW, things as they are in most places in the U.S., and things as they were up until recently in the rest of the country. Our friend **Bricker** says that because of the lack of voter IDs, you sometimes get as many as 100 ineligible voters casting ballots in a mid-sized state, and that can tip an extremely close election. I have no argument with that. But if you’re trying to solve a problem, you don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease. That’s a fundamental standard. So if the problem you’re solving is that tiny, your solution has to be pretty damn close to perfect. It’s _the tininess of the problem_ that’s the source of the need for a near-perfect solution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/107 "2013-07-09T19:00:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So discriminatory intent or disciminatory impact means nothing? > > This is a silly analogy but… lets say that we made owning (putting aside the poll tax issue) a bottle of hair relaxer a precondition to voting. Would that be OK? Would it matter that hair relaxer is much more available in some neighborhoods than others? Does it matter that black households generally already have hair relaxer in the house and the white folks would all have to go out and get some, perhaps waiting in long lines to do so? The problem with this analogy (apart from the poll tax issue) is that there’s no relationship whatsoever between hair relaxer and voting. This is precisely the point the Supreme Court emphasized when they approved Voter ID: > [@](#): > > In Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections (citation omitted) the Court held that Virginia could not condition the right to vote in a state election on the payment of a poll tax of $1.50. We rejected the dissenters’ argument that the interest in promoting civic responsibility by weeding out those voters who did not care enough about public affairs to pay a small sum for the privilege of voting provided a rational basis for the tax . . . Although the State’s justification for the tax was rational, it was invidious because it was irrelevant to the voter’s qualifications. > > Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, **even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications**. So hair relaxers, even if free, are not permitted to serve as qualifiers to vote because they are unrelated to voter qualifications. ---
**Author:** ![maxh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c77e96/32.png) [@maxh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maxh)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/108 "2013-07-09T20:23:56Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > You don’t have a copy of your birth certificate? You don’t have a passport? I have to point out that neither of those proves that one holds US citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/109 "2013-07-09T20:50:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You keep announcing standards like this, as though somehow you have been given permission to declare authoritatively that a particular standard is the one we should use. > > I don’t agree. I say that the actual standard is: “As long as Voter ID programs do not impose unreasonable hardships as barriers to obtaining ID, they are a success.” In the sense of post #101. > [@Bricker](#): > > The difference between my announced standard, and your announced standard, is that mine comports with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and yours is just some shit you wish were true. Thank you for reminding us exactly why the Constitution itself needs amending in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/110 "2013-07-09T20:53:43Z")
> [@maxh](#): > > I have to point out that neither of those proves that one holds US citizenship. So what document does? ---
**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 9, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/111 "2013-07-09T22:39:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You keep announcing standards like this, as though somehow you have been given permission to declare authoritatively that a particular standard is the one we should use. > > I don’t agree. I say that the actual standard is: “As long as Voter ID programs do not impose unreasonable hardships as barriers to obtaining ID, they are a success.” > > If a person has no unreasonable barrier in getting a photo ID, but fails to get one anyway, that does not count as a failure of the system. > > The difference between my announced standard, and your announced standard, is that mine comports with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and yours is just some shit you wish were true. This is a message board not a court of law, a distinction which you regularly miss. This thread is a debate about what we think the law should be not what the law is. So my opinions on what I think the legal standard should be are completely valid and on topic here. If Antonin Scalia decides he wants his opinions to be included, he can post them himself. He’s an articulate writer. So I don’t see how he needs you to present them on his behalf. Perhaps you should work on developing your own opinions rather than just repeating somebody else’s. ---
**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 9, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/112 "2013-07-09T22:49:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is a message board not a court of law, a distinction which you regularly miss. > > This thread is a debate about what we think the law should be not what the law is. So my opinions on what I think the legal standard should be are completely valid and on topic here. > > If Antonin Scalia decides he wants his opinions to be included, he can post them himself. He’s an articulate writer. So I don’t see how he needs you to present them on his behalf. Perhaps you should work on developing your own opinions rather than just repeating somebody else’s. Agreed. I think **Bricker** has lost track of the intent of this thread, which is to propose a new amendment to the Constitution. In that case, it doesn’t matter what the SCOTUS has said in the past unless it supports the proposition, in which case no amendment is needed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/113 "2013-07-09T23:21:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Agreed. I think **Bricker** has lost track of the intent of this thread, which is to propose a new amendment to the Constitution. To which I would add: Not necessarily the same amendment as Pocan and Ellison’s H.J.R. 28. Many posters here agree with the intent but see problems with the wording. So? How would you re-word it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/114 "2013-07-10T02:29:31Z")
"The right of any United States citizen of at least 18 years of age to vote in elections for Federal office shall not be infringed. “Congress may enforce this amendment with 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 10, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/115 "2013-07-10T02:39:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > "The right of any United States citizen of at least 18 years of age to vote in elections for Federal office shall not be infringed. > > “Congress may enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation.” I’d still favor a criminal exception. But just to head off the possibility of that being abused, I’d make a small change to my previous suggestion: > [@](#): > > 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 a felony whereof the party shall have been duly convicted and only for such a period as the punishment is in effect. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ---
**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 10, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/116 "2013-07-10T03:10:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > "The right of any United States citizen of at least 18 years of age to vote in elections for Federal office shall not be infringed. > > “Congress may enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation.” That’s cool, but it would never pass. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/117 "2013-07-10T03:49:35Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > "The right of any United States citizen of at least 18 years of age to vote in elections for Federal office shall not be infringed. > > “Congress may enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation.” Why “Federal” only? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/118 "2013-07-10T03:55:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why “Federal” only? Nobody ever talks about it because it only allows one extreme remedy for violations, but there is already a part of the Constitution that gives a list of offices that people (well, just men at the time, as can be seen) ought to be able to vote for: > [@](#): > > But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of **electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof** , is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. ---
**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 10, 2013, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/119 "2013-07-10T05:28:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why “Federal” only? Some would argue - and I would tend to agree - that laws for state elections like Governor or state legislator should be handled by the state involved. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668/120 "2013-07-10T11:00:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Some would argue - and I would tend to agree - that laws for state elections like Governor or state legislator should be handled by the state involved. That’s my reasoning too. In all likelihood, very few states would choose to have more restrictive voting standards than the Federal government, because they hold their state elections at the same time as Congressional elections, and it would be a PITA to have different classes of eligible voters for the two. But an amendment that didn’t tell the states what they had to do with _their own_ elections would have a much better chance of getting through 38 state legislatures than one that did. Note to John Mace: can you imagine **any** Constitutional amendment being ratified, these days? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-u-s-constitution-need-a-right-to-vote-amendment/662668.md?page=7)