# Proposed Constitutional Amendment: Voting Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261 "2004-08-10T21:10:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/1 "2004-08-10T21:10:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/2 "2004-08-10T21:21:29Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/3 "2004-08-10T21:34:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/4 "2004-08-10T22:07:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/5 "2004-08-10T22:52:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/6 "2004-08-10T23:07:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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:](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? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/7 "2004-08-10T23:12:44Z")
As long as we’re amending the Constitution, why not remove or change that “eighteen years of age” nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/8 "2004-08-10T23:16:20Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/9 "2004-08-10T23:17:30Z")
Can we also tag on a little “And the second Tuesday of November shall forthwith be declared a National Holiday” to that? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/10 "2004-08-10T23:26:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. ---
**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:** [August 10, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/11 "2004-08-10T23:29:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/12 "2004-08-10T23:47:11Z")
[QUOTE=furt] 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.** > [@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. > [@furt](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/13 "2004-08-10T23:57:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/14 "2004-08-11T00:05:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/15 "2004-08-11T00:56:16Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/16 "2004-08-11T01:15:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. > [@Munch](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/17 "2004-08-11T01:20:46Z")
Details, details. The important thing is to establish the principle that Congress has the power and the duty to nationally standardize the voting process! ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/18 "2004-08-11T02:49:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/19 "2004-08-11T02:54:59Z")
> [@Stuffy](#): > > 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. > [@Stuffy](#): > > 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!** ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261/20 "2004-08-11T16:36:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-constitutional-amendment-voting-rights/259261.md?page=2)