The most important thing you need to know about the voter ID issue

[KingOrfeo]

Did you find that in the Huff post?

There are hundreds of web sites that claim possible voter fraud in the MN election.

No doubt the same is true of Trutherism, Birtherism, the NWO and the Lizard People (who got some write-in votes in that election, BTW).

 

[Lorilei]

No doubt the same is true of Trutherism, Birtherism, the NWO and the Lizard People.

Don't forget the Holocaust deniers!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Don't forget the Holocaust deniers!

Holocaust deniers?! Oh, there's no such thing! [rimshot]

 

[Lorilei]

Holocaust deniers?! Oh, there's no such thing! [rimshot]

I see what you did there.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I bow to your superior Constitutional knowledge and your ability to google.

I was confused by the words "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote..."

It was an honest mistake.

Actually, bra_man is closer to right, there. Those provisions all speak of "right" in a strictly negative, "shall not be infringed" sense. Nothing in the Constitution states an affirmative right of anyone to vote in any election. All elections including national elections are state-run, and, except as expressly specified in the Constitution and federal legislation, it remains up to the states to decide who may or may not vote (e.g., in some states you can't vote if you have a felony conviction, in some you can, and in some you can vote from prison); and there is no "right" to vote in any state unless the state constitution says so in positive terms.

Now, if you don't like that, see here.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Actually, bra_man is closer to right, there. Those provisions all speak of "right" in a strictly negative, "shall not be infringed" sense. Nothing in the Constitution states an affirmative right of anyone to vote in any election. All elections including national elections are state-run, and, except as expressly specified in the Constitution and federal legislation, it remains up to the states to decide who may or may not vote (e.g., in some states you can't vote if you have a felony conviction, in some you can, and in some you can vote from prison); and there is no "right" to vote in any state unless the state constitution says so in positive terms.

Now, if you don't like that, see here.

If there was no Constitutional right to vote, the drafters of those Amendments wouldn't have used the words they did. Every word of every Amendment is scrutinized before it becomes adopted, and words have meanings.

I don't know how you can possibly argue that "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote..." means that there is no such right. It's clear and unambiguous.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If there was no Constitutional right to vote, the drafters of those Amendments wouldn't have used the words they did. Every word of every Amendment is scrutinized before it becomes adopted, and words have meanings.

I don't know how you can possibly argue that "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote..." means that there is no such right. It's clear and unambiguous.

It has never been so construed in any court. Again, states decide who votes except where the Constitution says otherwise -- any state could reinstate property qualifications if it wished. (It could not reinstate religious qualifications, none could survive a 1st Amendment challenge -- today; but in 1800, when some states still had religious qualifications, they could have survived a 1st Amendment challenge; constitutional law has a complex history.)

Again, if you don't like that, see here.

Right to Vote Amendment

Everyone should have the right to vote in free and fair elections regardless of who they are or where they live. To that end, FairVote advocates for establishing an explicit individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. In pursuit of that ideal, FairVote works to enact policies at the federal, state, and local levels that are consistent with our conviction that voting is not a privilege, but a right. We have a strategy for change that is grounded in having a national vision and local action plan, as embodied by our Promote Our Vote project.


HJ Res. 44

U.S. House Members Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison have shown great leadership in introducing House Joint Resolution 44 (HJ Res. 44), a bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution establishing an explicit right to vote. HJ Res. 44 would provide much needed protection for an individual right to vote in the United States.

NEW: FairVote policy brief on right to vote amendment
Support HJ Res. 44!

Why We Need It

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have an explicitly protected right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no explicit right to vote exists. That hole in our Constitution creates gaps in our protection of what should be a fundamental right.

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.


The Right to Vote Amendment Will . . .

Guarantee the right to vote for every citizen of voting age
Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards
Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters
Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly
Ground a movement for how we can live up to the ideal of the right to vote in our states and cities

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 explicit right to vote for every U.S. citizen.

 

[landslider2000]

All garden variety partisan hypocrisy.

Dems don't want illegal immigrants or voters to need ID, but want mucho ID re gun owners.

 

[KingOrfeo]

All garden variety partisan hypocrisy.

Dems don't want illegal immigrants or voters to need ID, but want mucho ID re gun owners.

Legal immigrants of course don't have ID and the Dems to not object to the ICE demanding it of them, Obama has done a lot of deporting. As for votes v. guns, really, be honest, with which can one person do more damage?