4 ms·
Mandatory voting is a violation of the First Amendment.
by edpazu 9y ago
Mandatory voting is a violation of the First Amendment.
- asteli 9y agoWhat about a $20 tax credit for voting? Would that also be a violation?
- conanbatt 9y agoThat affects voters disproportionately.
- taoistextremist 9y agoThat would be favoring one form of speech (voting) over another. You just have to make people want to vote without directly giving or taking something away from them for it.
- lcfcjs2 9y agoThe US President violates the Constitution every day and nothing happens.
- amaterasu 9y agoNot meaning to be ignorant here, but how?
- pitaj 9y agoVoting is political speech. The right to say nothing is as important as the right to speak.
- Spooks 9y agoHave an empty spot you can vote for. So they still have to go through the steps and send it in, but they don't actually have to speak/vote on something
- ben-schaaf 9y agoYou have every right to leave the ballot blank.
- jagger27 9y agoOr write Big Bird in.
- alextheparrot 9y agoVoting is a form of speech, so you can’t be compelled to speak or not under threat of punishment.
- gizmo686 9y agoCompelled speech. You could probably write the law in a way that avoids first amendment implications. For instance, require that people show up at a polling place, but do not require them to submit a ballot.
- emh68 9y agoIt’s fine - as long as I can write in “Darth Vader”.
- gopalv 9y ago> a violation of the First Amendment If write-ins were removed, I'd agree that it violates free speech. People voted for Harambe.
- JackFr 9y agoMaybe I just don't want to participate in your charade of false consensus
- colanderman 9y agoIs it (as in, is there case law)? You can always leave your ballot blank.
- Spivak 9y agoIn my opinion I don't think it's enough to let people leave their ballot blank because I think that participating in the election process is a form of speech supporting the institution. To me it is definitely a political statement to abstain from voting or abstaining from the political process entirely so its only logical that participating is also a political statement.
- woodruffw 9y agoNo, it isn't. It might be unconstitutional if mandatory voting required you to choose between a fixed number of candidates, but there's nothing stopping voters from putting whatever they please on their ballots. You are legally compelled by the government to fill out tax paperwork every year. Being (much more lightly) compelled to fill out a ballot is no different.
- vel0city 9y agoYou are only legally compelled by the government to fill out tax paperwork if you experience a taxable event in that year which would require you to fill out the form. If you do not have a taxable event (i.e., no income) you are not required to send any information to the government in relation to taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech EDIT: IANAL, please do not cite this as any legal justification in a court if you fail to file any form with a government.
- woodruffw 9y agoThe point is that the government can compel speech without endangering the first amendment. The IRS could decide tomorrow to mandate a form for those below the taxable level without running afoul of compulsion. If your income is subject to taxation, you can't refuse to fill out the paperwork on the grounds that doing so lends legitimacy to an institution you don't support. The same should be the case for voting.
- vel0city 9y agoWhat would be the requirement to compel voting? Be of voting age population and be mentally sound? Sounds like a massive expansion of state power to force all people of a certain age and sound mind to do an action.
- woodruffw 9y agoI'm not sure what you mean by the "requirement." In order to vote in the US, you have to be of voting age. Some states impose additional requirements, like not being a felon (which I think are wrong, but that's another story). Mandatory voting would have the same requirements. Anybody who previously could vote now must. In terms of state power: it's not all that great of an expansion. If you make over the taxable limit, you pay federal taxes. If you own any sort of land, there's a good chance you pay local taxes on it. These sorts of compulsions apply to (equally?) large swathes of the population without necessitating a great deal of state power.
- taobility 9y agoWho provides the First Amendment right? haha, I really like to see how US ruined by the American!
- bluejekyll 9y ago"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you know what ruling supports that? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment And this article seems to support the idea that it would be feasible, and specifically talks to the First Amendment issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasible-roadmap-to-compulsory-voting/413422/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasi...
- alkonaut 9y agoIt’s also just a general bad idea. Turnout is a measure of the validity of an election result and support for the democratic process. That’s lost (no, blank and absentee does not send the same message). What you want is to make it easy to vote, and encourage it. Remove registration requirements. Make sure it never takes more than 15 minutes. Make sure it’s easy to know/find/access the polling place. Make elections be on holidays or sundays.
- gkya 9y agoThis may be dependent on a country's tradition, but voting is not speech, it is one's most direct participation in democracy. Who doesn't vote ignores the system and thus (in my humble and personal opinion) is not a part of it.