Does the U.S. Constitution need a "Right to Vote" Amendment?

[David_H_Singanas]

There is a right to vote explicitly stated in the Constitution. But in Australia, voting is not
just a right. It is the law. If you don’t vote down under, you are breaking the law.

I recognise the validity of BrainGlutton’s proposed amendment. However, I don’t see the
necessity at this time of giving the Federals more power than they already have over state
voting rights and regulations. I am not a conservative. This is a Texan POV and a Southern
POV.

[aNewLeaf]

@Little_Nemo

Then why are there four amendments that explicitly refer to the right to vote?

If there are, why do we need another?

[Alessan]

Maybe I don’t understand how things work, but isn’t a presidential election by definition a federal matter?

[John_Mace]

@Alessan

Maybe I don’t understand how things work, but isn’t a presidential election by definition a federal matter?

All elections in the US are run by the states. There is no such thing as a federally run election. The states elect the president, as I’m sure you know, not the general populace.

It’s a feature, not a bug.

[Alessan]

And you’re happy with that?

[Evil_Captor]

Oh my god, I agree with TomNDeb. The amendment as written feels like pure feel-goodism, without doing anything to prevent the sort of shenanigans that the Republicans have been up to. What I think would be more to the point would be to make it a felony to enact any law that can be shown to restrict the ability of citizens to vote, or to engage in any practices (cutting back voting hours, or reducing the number of voting machines in precincts that are known to have a large number of voters, etc.) or to hire, induce or persuade others to do so. Then put some legislators and dirty tricksters in jail for long periods based on that law.

Never happen, of course. The Republicans would cry “persecution” and fight it tooth and nail.

[Lobohan]

@Little_Nemo

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.”

I was about to post something along those lines, you did it better than I would have.

[John_Mace]

@Alessan

And you’re happy with that?

Yes, I am.

[BrainGlutton]

@aNewLeaf

It’s really not though.
Voting is a privilege and a responsibility, it’s not a right.

That is what needs to change.

[BrainGlutton]

@jtgain

Can a state verify that a voter is a citizen of the United States by checking identification?

I doubt it. Nothing on your DL reflects your citizenship status. They’d have to make it the rule that you have to bring your passport, and that’s never gonna fly.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

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.”

The line was:

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.

I agree that “questions remain” is not an admission of fact. But “questions remain” about votes that were lost and found. The next sentence doesn’t say that questions remain. It says that potentially ineligible voters cast ballots.

That’s what I say, too.

[BrainGlutton]

Even if this amendment never passes, proposing it is more than a feel-good measure. It is also a goalpost-moving, Overton-window-shifting measure. Simply pointing out that voting is not a constitutional right can spark public debate over whether it should be, and the mere occurrence of such debate is a form of victory here, as it takes the center-of-controversy away from the ID-demanders.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

I agree that “questions remain” is not an admission of fact. But “questions remain” about votes that were lost and found. The next sentence doesn’t say that questions remain. It says that potentially ineligible voters cast ballots.

That’s what I say, too.

We apparently have different views about what “may have” means.

[Little_Nemo]

@aNewLeaf

If there are, why do we need another?

Because the other amendments only protect certain aspects of the right to vote. They say citizens can’t lose their right to vote because of the specific reasons of age or sex or race or tax payment. But I’d like to see a broader protection saying citizens can’t lose their right to vote in general.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

We apparently have different views about what “may have” means.

“May have” refers to the possible counting of provisional ballots as normal ballots.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

“May have” refers to the possible counting of provisional ballots as normal ballots.

And “potentially”? What does that mean? Do you think there’s no difference between “ineligible voters” and “potentially ineligible voters”?

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Even if this amendment never passes, proposing it is more than a feel-good measure. It is also a goalpost-moving, Overton-window-shifting measure. Simply pointing out that voting is not a constitutional right can spark public debate over whether it should be, and the mere occurrence of such debate is a form of victory here, as it takes the center-of-controversy away from the ID-demanders.

So, it is an academic exercise then. If more than 1% of the country took part in such a “debate”, I’d be flabergasted.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Potentially ineligible voters cast ballots?

Thanks for finally admitting it.

As Jane Meyer wrote in The New Yorker last October:

Mainstream election experts say that [Hans von] Spakovsky [of the Heritage Foundation] has had an improbably large impact. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, and the author of a recent book, “The Voting Wars,” says, “Before 2000, there were some rumblings about Democratic voter fraud, but it really wasn’t part of the main discourse. But thanks to von Spakovsky and the flame-fanning of a few others, the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections, has become part of the Republican orthodoxy.” In December, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote, “Election fraud is a real and persistent threat to our electoral system.” He accused Democrats of “standing up for potential fraud—presumably because ending it would disenfranchise at least two of its core constituencies: the deceased and double-voters.” Hasen believes that Democrats, for their part, have made exaggerated claims about the number of voters who may be disenfranchised by Republican election-security measures. But he regards the conservative alarmists as more successful. “Their job is really done,” Hasen says. “It’s common now to assert that there is a need for voter I.D.s, even without any evidence.”

<snip>

Nearly all scholars of America’s system of locally run elections acknowledge chronic problems, including administrative incompetence, sloppy registration rolls, unreliable machinery, vote buying, and absentee-ballot fraud. But Robert Brandon, the president of the Fair Elections Legal Network and a longtime reformer, says that the current debate, “which is about people impersonating another voter, is silly.” He adds, “You can’t steal an election one person at a time. You can by stuffing ballot boxes—but voter I.D.s won’t stop that.”

Von Spakovsky offered me the names of two experts who, he said, would confirm that voter-impersonation fraud posed a significant peril: Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management, at American University, and Larry Sabato, a political-science professor at the University of Virginia. Pastor, von Spakovsky noted, had spoken to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about being a victim of election fraud: voting in Georgia, he discovered that someone else had already voted under his name.

When I reached Pastor, he clarified what had happened to him. “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted—it was just a mistake.” He added, “I don’t think that voter-impersonation fraud is a serious problem.” Pastor believes that, compared with other democracies, America is “somewhere near the bottom in election administration,” and thinks that voter I.D.s make sense—but only if they are free and easily available to all, which, he points out, is not what Republican legislatures have proposed. Sabato, who supports the use of voter I.D.s under the same basic conditions, says of the voter-impersonation question, “One fraudulent vote is one too many, but my sense is that it’s relatively rare today.”

Hasen says that, while researching “The Voting Wars,” he “tried to find a single case” since 1980 when “an election outcome could plausibly have turned on voter-impersonation fraud.” He couldn’t find one. News21, an investigative-journalism group, has reported that voter impersonation at the polls is a “virtually non-existent” problem. After conducting an exhaustive analysis of election-crime prosecutions since 2000, it identified only seven convictions for impersonation fraud. None of those cases involved conspiracy.

Lorraine Minnite, a public-policy professor at Rutgers, collated decades of electoral data for her 2010 book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” and came up with some striking statistics. In 2005, for example, the federal government charged many more Americans with violating migratory-bird statutes than with perpetrating election fraud, which has long been a felony. She told me, “It makes no sense for individual voters to impersonate someone. It’s like committing a felony at the police station, with virtually no chance of affecting the election outcome.” A report by the Times in 2007 also found election fraud to be rare. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department initiated a five-year crackdown on voter fraud, but only eighty-six people were convicted of any kind of election crime.

Hasen, who calls von Spakovsky a leading member of “the Fraudulent Fraud Squad,” told me that he respects many other conservative advocates in his area of expertise, but dismisses scholars who allege widespread voter-impersonation fraud. “I see them as foot soldiers in the Republican army,” he says. “It’s just a way to excite the base. They are hucksters. They’re providing fake scholarly support. They’re not playing fairly with the facts. And I think they know it.”

[Little_Nemo]

@John_Mace

So, it is an academic exercise then.

Not necessarily. The issue of whether a candidate does or does not support a right to vote proposal could be an issue in election campaigns, even if the proposal itself isn’t enacted.

Look at Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge. It had no legal authority or effect. But it’s a significant issue if candidates refuse to take it.

[adaher]

Lower taxes is a winning issue. Supporting a right to vote with no reliable verification of identity or even whether the voter is a citizen is not. Which is why you won’t see anyone outside of the bluest districts support this thing. Republicans take the Norquist pledge because they have to to survive unless they rely mainly on independents and Democrats to win elections. Democrats won’t take this pledge precisely because it will cost them among independents, who strongly support voter ID.

States have the power to decide who is eligible to vote, and how that eligibility shall be verified, so long as there is no discriminatory intent behind the law. Courts have consistently upheld this standard, and I’d bet that nearly all 50 states are satisfied with it.

THis proposal is incredibly easy to demonize. Reading between the lines, I’d say it gives felons the right to vote. Boom! Winning conservative issue.