Counters and observers continue a hand recount of Broward County ballots, Nov. 19, 2000 (Credit: AP/Amy E. Conn)
Salon
Is it time, at long last, for the citizens of the United States to enjoy the constitutional right to vote for the people who govern them?
Phrased in that way, the question may come as a shock. The U.S. has waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified, at least in rhetoric, by the claim that people deserve the right to vote for their leaders. Most of us assume that the right to vote has long been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Not according to the Supreme Court. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court ruled that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” That’s right. Under federal law, according to the Supreme Court, if you are a citizen of the United States, you have a right to own a firearm that might conceivably be used in overthrowing the government. But you have no right to wield a vote that might be used to change the government by peaceful means.
FairVote, a nonprofit organization that leads the fight for electoral reform in the U.S., points out:
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.
I would have no objection to passing an amendment to make that right explicit, but we've done a fair job of making voting available to citizens in good standing, and the implication of the named amendments is that voting is a right. It's good to see Salon recognizing the right to own and carry guns.
ReplyDeleteGreg, am I mistaken, or have you cited voting as one of the rights that is equal to all the others? Now you're doing that equivocating thing again by saying it's only been implicit.
DeleteMikeb, once again we see your error in assuming that the Constitution names all rights that exist and is the origin of those rights. Neither is true. The ability to choose the politicians who will make and enforce the law is a basic right. It, like many other rights, is implied by the Constitution.
DeleteSaid document only enumerates some of our rights, the ones that the Founders were most concerned about being at risk. We've added more to the list since then, but in no case does that document or any other give us our rights.
If you would argue from principle instead of from feeling, you would understand how I see things.
So we have an op-ed decrying the lack of a constitutional protection of voting rights. As happens when there is a perceived problem, they are going to begin the process of amending the constitution, where they predict opposition by the evil old white republicans. It almost sounds like an intro to the hoped for amendment to the constitution to eliminate the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I did notice in the article is that it seems that the onerous rules that voters have to suffer seem quite similar to the gun laws in force now.
If voting is not a right then why do we hear so much crap about states that want voter ID laws being equated to a poll tax?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThis article and your comment to Greg about his defense of voting as a right are a bunch of ridiculous gymnastics. We have laws and constitutional amendments regarding and referring to the right to vote.
Here, the court was saying that the people didn't have the constitutional right to vote directly for their electors in the electoral college. This is just like how the people didn't originally have a right to vote for their senators and how the people don't have a right to vote on every piece of legislation that comes before the Congress.
To try to use the lack of a right to vote on a specific issue into a broad statement that there is no right to vote is dishonest in the extreme.
If you want to make an argument for direct election of electors or election of the president by popular vote, go for it. However, if your main purpose of bringing this up was to score points against Greg, then shame on you.
That was the main purpose. I'm ashamed of myself.
DeleteIf only that were true, I could have some hope for you.
Delete"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
ReplyDelete"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
Correct, Mike. It is up to each State to determine how to appoint the Electors from their State. There is no Constitutional Right for individuals to vote for the electors. I am not sure why this is a shock to anyone. After all, isn't the Constitution actually taught in school? Oh, wait...
Jeff Greenfield wrote a good book about elections, electors and the process of the conventions, ect. The book is called "The People's Choice" and although it's a work of fiction, Greenfield does an excellent job of laying out the historical aspects of how the electors are chosen and how they are supposed to vote.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, although it may not seem like it, the people of each state do vote for the Presidential candidate. Then each state has it's convention where the electors are chosen for the electoral college.
The electors are "supposed" to vote the way their state voted, ie. each political party having it's own convention for electors. The conventions for electors are usually held a few weeks after the election.