4 ms·

There's essentially no one saying there should be no identity verification, just like there's no meaningful voter impersonation fraud. The complaint is the fai

by cmurf 8y ago

There's essentially no one saying there should be no identity verification, just like there's no meaningful voter impersonation fraud. The complaint is the fairness of the burden to obtain acceptable ID, for voting. In Alabama, over a dozen driver's license office closures mean people in overwhelmingly black counties had a vastly high burden to obtain ID than people living in predominately white counties. There are all kinds of examples and variations on this theme. It's hardly any different than poll taxes, and literacy tests. They're just as blatantly racist as how photo ID rules are employed. Using your logic of Puerto Rico, since the vast majority of the U.S. went without photo ID's for voting for over 200 years with no statistically meaningful voter fraud problems, we don't need such laws today either. Meanwhile a recent case in Texas, a non-citizen with stolen photo ID had been illegally voting in elections, which means photo ID's do not assure there's no fraud. Anyway, people have a right to vote. It is not a privilege. And therefore the state cannot apply unreasonable burdens on people, which only serve to disenfranchise them from their right to vote.

int_19h 8y ago
> Anyway, people have a right to vote. It is not a privilege. Actually, in US, it is a privilege. Look up the Constitution - the original one doesn't define any right to vote at all (which was a necessary component of the 3/5th Compromise); all it says is that the states must have a "republican form of government". And all subsequent amendments specify what can't be used as a basis to deny the right to vote. Aside from the ones that did so explicitly, there's also the catch-all Equal Protection Clause - but even that does not amount to a full-on acknowledgement that voting is a basic right of any American citizen. This is why the states can e.g. deny the right to vote to felons - some doing so for the rest of their lives, and without any ability to reinstate it. And why all challenges to voter suppression have to be coached in anti-discrimination language (i.e. that they deny the right to vote to some protected minority specifically, as opposed to a generic right to vote). It's a very unfortunate state of affairs, and we desperately need a constitutional amendment that instates the right to vote as one of the fundamental rights of a citizen.
- cmurf 8y ago
  I disagree with your interpretation. This is a more compelling argument: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And all subsequent amendments specify what can't be used as a basis to deny the right to vote. Which explicitly labels it a right, as well as restricting the conditions under which that right may be restricted. PPP So, it is explicitly a right. And it has repeatedly been found to be a fundamental right (and thus subject to strict scrutiny.)
- bloomer 8y ago
  Well there are the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and the voting rights act of 1965 that do establish the right to vote. But, yes those have all been significantly weakened by the judiciary, including to allow permanent disenfranchisement of convicted felons, which seems explicitly against the text of the fifteenth amendment.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > Well there are the fourteenth The only bit in the 14th that explicitly addresses voting doesn't establish a right to vote. It says that if the states deny the right to vote to some male citizens above a certain age, then their representation in Congress is proportionally reduced. Note that this mechanism implies that the states can, nevertheless, opt into such an arrangement. So, if anything, it establishes that there's no right to vote. If you're referring to the Equal Protection Clause. It does not explicitly establish a right to vote, either. It has some effects on voting rights - in particular, it was used to restrict poll taxes in state elections (since the 24th only applied to federal elections). However, the relevant court decisions explained that it was not because it infringed on some inherent right to vote that all citizens possess, but rather because it was unduly discriminatory (on the basis of "the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee"). > and fifteenth amendments That one says you can't deny the right to vote based on race. Similarly, 19th amendment does the same wrt gender, and 26th does the same wrt age for those 18+. However, none of these establish a right to vote, per se. For example, if a state denies the right to vote on the grounds that are not related to race, they are not in violation of the 15th. > and the voting rights act of 1965 That one is more of an implementation of the above, although it goes further wrt placing the burden of proof on the states in many cases. But, in any case, it's just a law, and as such it cannot establish a fundamental right (since Congress can overturn it at any time). > those have all been significantly weakened by the judiciary Given that Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections was one of the massive expansions of the right to vote, I don't think that's a reasonable assertion. Courts have given, and courts have taken away. If Constitution were explicit on this subject, we wouldn't have this back-and-forth. > allow permanent disenfranchisement of convicted felons, which seems explicitly against the text of the fifteenth amendment. Convicted felons are not a race. Yes, there is a racial disparity when it comes to such laws in practice; but the amendment doesn't prohibit any restrictions that result in a racial disparity - only those that are specifically using race as a basis. Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, is the law that prohibits restrictions on the basis of their results, rather than their intent. But even with VRA, a mere disproportionality is not sufficient to declare a restriction unlawful. And, of course, it's still just a law, and therefore cannot provide any fundamental guarantees like the Constitution does. So, in practice, there's no universal constitutional right to vote for citizens in the United States on the federal level. There's a patchwork of protections, but even when taken in combination, it does not amount to such a right.

by cmurf 8y ago

int_19h 8y ago

> Anyway, people have a right to vote. It is not a privilege. Actually, in US, it is a privilege. Look up the Constitution - the original one doesn't define any right to vote at all (which was a necessary component of the 3/5th Compromise); all it says is that the states must have a "republican form of government". And all subsequent amendments specify what can't be used as a basis to deny the right to vote. Aside from the ones that did so explicitly, there's also the catch-all Equal Protection Clause - but even that does not amount to a full-on acknowledgement that voting is a basic right of any American citizen. This is why the states can e.g. deny the right to vote to felons - some doing so for the rest of their lives, and without any ability to reinstate it. And why all challenges to voter suppression have to be coached in anti-discrimination language (i.e. that they deny the right to vote to some protected minority specifically, as opposed to a generic right to vote). It's a very unfortunate state of affairs, and we desperately need a constitutional amendment that instates the right to vote as one of the fundamental rights of a citizen.

cmurf 8y ago
I disagree with your interpretation. This is a more compelling argument: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> And all subsequent amendments specify what can't be used as a basis to deny the right to vote. Which explicitly labels it a right, as well as restricting the conditions under which that right may be restricted. PPP So, it is explicitly a right. And it has repeatedly been found to be a fundamental right (and thus subject to strict scrutiny.)
bloomer 8y ago
Well there are the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and the voting rights act of 1965 that do establish the right to vote. But, yes those have all been significantly weakened by the judiciary, including to allow permanent disenfranchisement of convicted felons, which seems explicitly against the text of the fifteenth amendment.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > Well there are the fourteenth The only bit in the 14th that explicitly addresses voting doesn't establish a right to vote. It says that if the states deny the right to vote to some male citizens above a certain age, then their representation in Congress is proportionally reduced. Note that this mechanism implies that the states can, nevertheless, opt into such an arrangement. So, if anything, it establishes that there's no right to vote. If you're referring to the Equal Protection Clause. It does not explicitly establish a right to vote, either. It has some effects on voting rights - in particular, it was used to restrict poll taxes in state elections (since the 24th only applied to federal elections). However, the relevant court decisions explained that it was not because it infringed on some inherent right to vote that all citizens possess, but rather because it was unduly discriminatory (on the basis of "the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee"). > and fifteenth amendments That one says you can't deny the right to vote based on race. Similarly, 19th amendment does the same wrt gender, and 26th does the same wrt age for those 18+. However, none of these establish a right to vote, per se. For example, if a state denies the right to vote on the grounds that are not related to race, they are not in violation of the 15th. > and the voting rights act of 1965 That one is more of an implementation of the above, although it goes further wrt placing the burden of proof on the states in many cases. But, in any case, it's just a law, and as such it cannot establish a fundamental right (since Congress can overturn it at any time). > those have all been significantly weakened by the judiciary Given that Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections was one of the massive expansions of the right to vote, I don't think that's a reasonable assertion. Courts have given, and courts have taken away. If Constitution were explicit on this subject, we wouldn't have this back-and-forth. > allow permanent disenfranchisement of convicted felons, which seems explicitly against the text of the fifteenth amendment. Convicted felons are not a race. Yes, there is a racial disparity when it comes to such laws in practice; but the amendment doesn't prohibit any restrictions that result in a racial disparity - only those that are specifically using race as a basis. Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, is the law that prohibits restrictions on the basis of their results, rather than their intent. But even with VRA, a mere disproportionality is not sufficient to declare a restriction unlawful. And, of course, it's still just a law, and therefore cannot provide any fundamental guarantees like the Constitution does. So, in practice, there's no universal constitutional right to vote for citizens in the United States on the federal level. There's a patchwork of protections, but even when taken in combination, it does not amount to such a right.