FairVote Feed: Right to Vote Amendment

Right to Vote Advocates Give Testimonies to US Senate Judiciary Committee

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:07:08 -0700

Today, September 8, 2011, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on state voting laws, in particular, laws that could be seen as suppressing voter turnout. It is great to have this hearing, and we applaud the many organizations who provided testimony to the Senate in hopes of protecting voters' rights.

Our Constitution currently reads as a document that disallows government from denying its citizens the ability to vote on the basis of race, gender and age. But government is not required to go out of its way to make sure that those who do want to vote, be supplied the means or education in order to meet the requirements to participate in the electoral process. This is why a right to vote is so necessary, and not simply amendments that prevent voters from discrimination. A uniform understanding of the federal electoral process should be established, as in H.J.R.28, a proposed constitutional amendment for the right to vote, instead of having 50 different sets of voting rules and regulations. Variations in state electoral laws often leave communities confused about voters' rights, while impacting the United States' already considerably low voter turnout.

-Here is what top advocacy organizations are telling the Senate about the right to vote:

“The right to vote is fundamental to the attainment and preservation of all these rights. It is essential to our democracy. Indeed, it is the language of our democracy. Thankfully, in securing the right to vote, the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, and brutal physical intimidation are behind us. But today’s efforts at disfranchisement, while more subtle, are no less pernicious. Rhetoric like that of Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval that ‘the right to vote is a privilege’ – a contradiction in terms if I have ever heard one – cannot be tolerated in a democracy founded on equality.”
- The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

“Although the right to vote is widely recognized as a constitutionally-protected,
fundamental right, barriers to political participation, such as those discussed in my
testimony today, threaten to render that right meaningless. No one should have to choose between feeding one’s family and exercising the most fundamental right of our democracy. Moreover, LDF urges Congress to prioritize those efforts that are aimed at ensuring equal and full participation for all voters.”
-NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund

“Organizations, individuals and policymakers in Congress and in state legislatures must continue the fight to prevent more states from enacting these voter disfranchisement measures. This era must not go down in history as one in which the right to vote in this country took huge strides backward toward discrimination and exclusion.”
-Dēmos

“The Lawyers’ Committee will continue to aggressively protect the right to vote for ALL voters and work to ensure the enforcement of our nation‘s voting rights laws.”
-Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

“Systematically making it more difficult for everyone to vote is profoundly harmful to our democracy and should be of concern to all citizens, including this Subcommittee.”
-Fair Elections Legal Network

“The right to vote is the most basic of all political rights. Over the last several years, the
American public has become aware of the many inconsistencies that exist in voting systems throughout the country and which compromise the integrity of the election process.”
-AARP

“Instead of creating unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to the ballot box, state governments must re-direct their resources to ensuring the right to vote for all. No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted. In order for the United States to continue as one of the world’s leading democracies, it must ensure all eligible citizens are able to register and cast their ballots. Elected officials should be seeking ways to encourage more voters, not inventing baseless excuses to deny voters the ability to cast their ballots.”
-American Civil Liberties Union

"The right to vote, particularly for racial minorities, young voters, senior citizens, the working poor
and people with disabilities, is under assault. The country has not seen this level of attempted suppression since the
days of poll taxes and literacy tests."
- Advancement Project

Bill H.J.RES.28, which seeks to establish a constitutional amendment for the right to vote, has been introduced to Congress and was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution on February 28, 2011. It currently has 35 cosponsors.

Tell your Congressperson to support H.J.R. 28.

Continue to track this legislation.

The Next Generation of Reformers: Reasons for Young People to Get Involved in the Electoral Reform Movement

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:01:17 -0700

According to The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, an estimated 24% of all eligible young people ages 18-29 voted in the 2010 midterms – in contrast to 51% of eligible voters over 30. Historically, we’re a group that gets ignored a lot by political campaigns and pollsters. The chicken or egg question of youth voter turnout is usually: Do young people not vote because campaigns ignore them, or do campaigns ignore them because we don’t vote?

The 2008 election seemed to prove that young people do vote if they see a reason to participate and are reached out to. The same is true for young people in nonpartisan movements like the environmental movement and organizations like Invisible Children that deal with international conflicts. Young people, especially of the millennial generation, will get excited and involved in elections and organizations if they are specifically targeted.

A lot of the people advocating for structural changes do so because we have problems with the established political culture. The group of people that is 18-29 right now has a lot of reasons to want deep systemic change soon. Because of this, I think that over the next decade we will see groups that are focused on young people intensify their advocacy efforts for election reform issues. Here’s why:

Millennials are more likely not to identify strongly with either party, which means we will want to take advantage of reforms like Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting means that voters don’t have to worry about a “spoiler effect” if they vote for a candidate who’s not polling in the top two spots. It also makes for less divisive campaigning.

We’re very transient, so we benefit from policies like Same Day Registration and Universal Voter Registration. If you move to a state that has different election laws or have to move suddenly, you might miss the deadline to register. These policies mean that no one will be disenfranchised because of a location change.

We’re the most diverse generation ever in America, so we want policies that will treat everyone equally, and are more willing to see the reality of inequality in our country. That could lead to interest in proportional voting systems that elect representatives who better reflect voters.

A lot of us are going to be in debt for the majority of our lives, so any policies that simulate a poll tax like photo ID laws is something that won’t fly with us -- especially when such policies make it more difficult for students to vote.

We’re used to having to figure out new technologies quickly and are used to adapting to the newest model, so registering to vote online and having better voting machines is not something we would shy away from. But we also know the limits of technology, so we will be supportive of checks on election systems, like paper ballots and election audits.

Being smart is cool- not only can we be a more informed electorate, we can be more informed about the system’s current deficiencies. Efforts to improve civic education can heighten awareness.

For instance, these organizations that focus on young people have recently advocated for voting rights and other structural changes:

In 2010, The Bus Project in Portland, OR campaigned against the repeal of the local municipal public-option campaign financing law. The Bus Project’s main objective is to get young people more involved in politics.

League of Young Voters in Portland, ME is crusading against the repeal of Election Day Registration in Maine as we speak. Young people are one of the biggest demographics that Election Day Registration helps, although certainly not the only. Last year the Leauge of Young Voters was involved in advocating for an elected Mayor in Portland and Ranked Choice Voting, both of which are being implemented for the first time this fall, and pushed hard for a nearly successful effort to allow residents who are legal immigrants to vote in city elections.

Young people are also defending their rights at a time when many citizens’ rights are under attack. In New Hampshire, there was a recent attempt to disenfranchise students in the form of an unconstitutional bill in the legislature that sought to bar students originally from out of state from voting in New Hampshire. Students from different colleges in New Hampshire went to the mattresses, and defended the rights of students to vote through protest, testifying in the State Legislature, and reaching out to media.

Students at Yale advocated for National Popular Vote in Connecticut and testified before the Election Laws Committee. Students all over the country are advocating for NPV and making an impact.

Voter pre-registration is a policy that is most effectively advocated for by the people it affects- young people ages 16 and 17, or people that were recently high school age. The Rhode Island Young Democrats successfully advocated for voter pre-registration in their state, which has been in effect since early 2010.

Groups like this mean that the next generation of election reformers is already active. But if we want to capitalize on all the reasons why this particular group should be calling for reforms like Ranked Choice Voting, Right to Vote, Pre-registration, and more, we need to make sure our message is reaching them.

Evolution of voting rights from 1789 to today must continue

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:35:45 -0700

Often we sanctify the Founding Fathers and the Constitution that is the bedrock of our republic. But when it comes to voting rights, most of the founders were far off the mark from how we see the right to vote today.

Consider the realities of the election of 1789, the first election of the new Congress. The overall number of people who were allowed to, and actually voted, was miniscule in state after state. For example, Delaware had a total state population of just over 59,000, but only 2,059 ballots were cast, meaning just 3% of the population. Georgia’s turnout was around 5%, New York about 3% and Rhode Island has what seems to have been lowest turnout of all at an abysmal 0.7%.

Compare this to today, where states have voter turnouts in major elections of around 30-60% of the overall population (including young people and non-citizens), with more than 60% of eligible voters participating in the 2008 presidential election. We can rightly be concerned that election turnout is low, especially in non-presidential elections, but it a lot better than it used to be.

The biggest reason for this increase is the inclusion of more people in the pool of voters. In 1789, only white, land owning men had the ability to vote in most states. Since the Civil War, we have amended the Constitution to prohibit limiting voting rights based on gender, race, age (for citizens who are at least 18) and wealth (when banning the poll tax). States have usually taken the lead in expanding suffrage, including no state now denying voting rights due to property ownership.

This widening of the voter pool more accurate represents what America looks like. But it’s not all the way there yet. Today, about a quarter of all eligible voters are not registered to vote and thus unable to vote on Election Day – including nearly half of young adults under 25. About 5% of our population is directly disenfranchised because of previous convictions, residence in a territory, living in an area with historically poor voting machines, difficulties with overseas and military ballots and other reasons.

As I’ve written in this series time and time again, we will continue to waffle and deny progress as long as we do not protect voting rights in the same way the Bill of Rights upholds other individual rights that are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Without a Constitutionally enumerated Right to Vote, our journey to fully representative democracy is incomplete.

Jo McKeegan this month finished her year-long tenure with FairVote as a legal fellow.

Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment Gathers Steam

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:35:40 -0700

Nothing is more fundamental to democracy that a fully protected right to vote. That’s why voters belong at the polls on Election Day -- and why a right to vote belongs in the U.S. Constitution. That's why we are so pleased to share good news. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced HJR 28, the right to vote amendment.

As our blog readers know, currently we have no constitutional right to vote. While many amendments eliminate discrimination in voting on account of gender, race, taxes, or age, no amendment actually grants the right to vote. The Supreme Court restated this fact during its 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore. HJR 28 would enshrine in the Constitution a right to vote for all Americans.

Our lack of a constitutionally enumerated right to vote directly disenfranchises millions of Americans and weakens opportunities to exercise voting rights for literally tens of millions more. Some Americans are clearly disenfranchised, including citizens living in our territories and the District of Columbia, and citizens living in states that ban people with felony convictions from voting. Others are more covertly silenced. For example, some 25% of all overseas military ballots went uncounted in 2008, and some six million votes were lost due to correctable administrative errors in the 2000 election.

If we had a right to vote, groups such as the elderly, the disabled, absentee and military voters would have better access to polls. In a country where voter turnout is routinely less than 50%, it is foolhardy to turn away people who actually want to participate and have a voice in government. In fact, the difficulty of navigating U.S. election laws related to turnout makes our turnout rate 139th among 172 nations worldwide.

The United States is one of only 11 democratic nations without a right to vote. The Help America Vote Act has improved voting in many respects, but we continue to do far too little to stand up for secure voting rights for all -- with barely two-thirds of eligible voters registered to vote, faulty voting equipment, poorly trained poll-workers and more.

You can help buy taking a few moments to help build support HJR 28, which in past years earned the sponsorship of more than 60 Members of Congress. Please click here to write your representative and tell them you would like them to join you in supporting a right to vote in the Constitution.

Without such a right specifically enumerated in our Constitution, politicians will continue to toy with who can vote and who cannot. That decision should belong only with each of us.

Rossello v. United States and the Right to Vote for Puerto Rico

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:02:11 -0700

During a week in which we celebrate the American colonies for seeking independence in large part due to denial of representation in the British parliament, it’s time for us to have a candid conversation about voting rights in our own present day “colonies”, starting with the American territory of Puerto Rico.

Brought in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by former governor of Puerto Rico Pedro Rossello, Rossello v. United States addresses the lack of a right to cast a ballot and have such ballots counted in national elections for president and Congress by residents of Puerto Rico. Petitioner Rossello has been disenfranchised, along with all other residents of Puerto Rico, despite his American citizenship, based solely on his area of residence within the United States. Currently, any American moving their residence to Puerto Rico would similarly be disenfranchised. This glaring discrimination against United States citizens living in Puerto Rico cannot be allowed to continue under international law and FairVote fully supports Rossello in his efforts.

The United States government is improperly denying the ability to vote to at least 3.7 million of its citizens in stating that the Resident Commission non-voting member of Congress is sufficient to address Puerto Rico’s needs. It is simply not reasonable to believe that one non-voting representative to Congress is equivalent to two senators, approximately six members of the House of Representatives, and a vote for the president and a vice president. The residents of Puerto Rico are being systematically disenfranchised and relegated to second class citizenship by their own government.

Puerto Rico’s current disenfranchised status is not acceptable. Unemployment in Puerto Rico is over 16% - grotesquely high even in an area where unemployment is always higher than that of the mainland. Residents of Puerto Rico pay the same social security and Medicaid taxes as mainlanders; however, they generally receive about 93% less in Medicaid coverage, something many believe is due to Puerto Rico’s inability to lobby for itself in Congress. Puerto Rico is hemorrhaging over 35,000 people a year and those who do leave are usually the highest educated, highly skilled, young, and Republican. In short, not having a voice at the national level is having a real effect on four million American lives.

Failing to provide basic suffrage rights to Puerto Rico is particularly ironic in a time of way when Puerto Rican Americans serve in our armed services at higher rates than most of our states. Petitioner claims that no other area of the United States suffered so many casualties of war prior to becoming a state as Puerto Rico has, or had more decorated and high ranking service members. Puerto Rican soldiers can be ordered into battle by a Commander in Chief for whom they have no power to vote.

And yet all evidence demonstrates that Puerto Ricans greatly value suffrage rights. Voter turnout in election for governor of Puerto Rico are higher than the gubernatorial election of any governor in the United States. In fact, 81% of the 2.4 million registered voters went to the polls in 2004, and Puerto Ricans make Election Day a holiday for their elections.

Voting rights in other American "colonies" differ. The phrase “the Constitution does not follow the flag” is often tossed around during this conversation to justify the varying levels of right in territories held by the United States. Additionally, “territory” is a broad term. For example, Americans living in American Samoa are U.S. nationals, but not U.S. citizens. The U.S. Virgin Islands require American citizens from the mainland to go through customs. Guam’s constitutional has never been approved by the Unites States Congress. People with residence in any territory, including Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa all have no right to vote for national representatives, in the form of a voting member of Congress or a elector vote for the U.S. President.

The political leaders of an American territory should not have to sue their own country in an international court in order to be heard as full citizens. But the series of cases controlling Puerto Rico’s status are racist (written by the same court as Plessy v. Ferguson) and a national embarrassment. Under the current system, without a right to vote in the national government, the discrimination against American citizens living in its colonies/territories will continue. For that reason, FairVote supports the efforts of Rossello on behalf the 3.7 million disenfranchised Puerto Ricans in his attempt to gain the voting right he is due as an American citizen.

President Obama’s recent visit to Puerto Rico was the first such state visit since one by President John Kennedy, and even that first-in-a-half-century visit was seen by many analysts as primarily a means to raise campaign funds and appeal to Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States. The president's pledge to support the will of Puerto Ricans should they vote on statehood again ("When the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you.") is welcome—but no substitute for immediately seeking means to address the broader problem of how we treat American citizens living in Puerto Rico.

What if the Right to Vote Started at Birth?

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:20:43 -0700

FairVote believes that voting is so important that it should be a right guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in the Constitution. Typically, as with other fundamental rights, there are some limitations on that right. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you can falsely yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. When it comes to voting, questions arise relating to mental development/deterioration and status of incarceration.

Last month, Jonathan Bernstein raised an interesting question: at what age should we be allowed to begin voting? More specifically, should citizens be given the right to vote at birth, with our parents voting on our behalf before we're capable of making our own judgments (Bernstein suggests the ripe old age of 15 for voting on one's own)? It's certainly an interesting theory. FairVote does not endorse such a position, but we think it important to look at both sides of the issue -- grounded in the fact that if we treat voting as a right, we should only limit rights for very good reasons along the lines of free speech rights not allowing us to yell "fire" in a theater if it threatens public safety.

As Bernstein points out, we already allow parents to do other things for their children. For example, we allow parents to sign contracts for their children based on the belief that children cannot always be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves. Parents are responsible for making the right decision for their child, one that both of them will have to live with. While signing a contract only affects a small number of people, and a vote could affect the country (or at least a city, a state, or congressional district), contracts offer an interesting comparison. We generally do not deny the right to vote to the elderly who have lost cognitive ability, nor do we prevent those who are not informed on the issues from voting, although many states do prevent those deemed mentally incompetent or insane from voting. Yet, in contract law, all of these people are provided with some protections from being bound to a contract they have signed.

Furthermore, when thinking of constitutional rights, and a proposed right to vote amendment, it is interesting to think about other Constitutional rights and their age limitations. The First Amendment, our right to speech, press, and religion, is not limited by age. We don't have to reach 18 to practice religion or speak our mind. However, the right to bear arms is regulated by age. While the NRA might disagree with that stance, no state allows children of all ages to possess firearms. Therefore, even when looking to a Right to Vote Amendment, an age restriction would not be completely without precedent.

Moreover, the biggest issue that arises is that allowing a parent to vote for their child goes against the rule of one person, one vote. As Bernstein points out, however, it is not entirely contrary to that policy. The child is a person, and that child is merely having his or her vote cast by someone else. It is not as if children are not affected by elected officials. Children are citizens. Legislatures make laws concerning schools. Taxes affect children, as it is relevant to a parent's income. The Census counts them as citizens for the purposes of apportionment. Elected officials represent children, yet they don't get to vote for them.

On the other hand, people will certainly be concerned about couples having children to influence the outcome of an election. It might seem to be a preposterous idea, but people can feel awfully strong about their political party. However, even if this does happen, (which seems unlikely, given the rigors of pregnancy) it is doubtful that a large enough segment of the population would do this to have any great effect on an election.

Also, it might not seem so crazy to have a parent vote for a child when one looks at the influence of parents on their children's voting. It's no secret that parents influence their children when it comes to voting. In The American Voter by Angus Campbell, studies were shown as to how children voted based on how their parents voted. The study found that when both parents were politically active the children were between (depending on political affiliation) 71-79% the same as their parents. Even when the parents were not politically active, the children were between 66-76% similar to their parents. Now, obviously these are parents that had strong leanings one way or another, and when the parents were not consistent in their partisanship, the children were more spread out over the political spectrum. Also, in another study, simply titled Voting, there was a strong correlation found between a parent's likelihood of voting and their child's likelihood, further suggesting parental influence on child voting.

However, this issue does raise the question of who does the child put in a vote for when the parents are split themselves. Mom wants to vote for A, and Dad wants to vote for B. Then what? Marriages face enough difficulty; perhaps throwing in domestic battles over which candidate little Johnny votes for isn't the best idea.

In any event, these are among interesting questions concerning children vote from birth (or even just from 15 or 16). Few would call it the the most pressing issue concerning the right to vote, as too many potentially eligible adults are already disenfranchised. For example, those with felony convictions who have served their time are still denied their right to vote in some states. However, this is why Bernstein's article is commendable; there needs to be a national dialogue about who should vote and greater clarity that having a right means treating those questions with respect, even if seemingly "outlandish." If there is a belief by some that a person should have their vote denied, there needs to be a conversation about it. Democracy demands that we get out and voice our opinion with our vote, and if certain people are not allowed to participate in something so important to the foundation of this country, it deserves debate.

Frankly, we need to have a broader dialogue about the right to vote as a general matter. It's easy for people to claim there is a fundamental "right to vote" in the Constitution--and for the Immigration and Natural Service even to promote that belief in a citizenship test -- but the fact is that we do not have such a constitutional right to vote. So before one dismisses Bernstein's idea as "silly," we should be ready to defend practices that systematically disenfranchise Americans.

The Right to Vote Blog: Put more money into politics?

Tue, 31 May 2011 12:55:31 -0700

“Let’s put more money into politics!” is a rallying cry that won’t win over too many supporters. Many Americans across the spectrum already believe the hyper-rich are somehow able to finagle elections in their favor, with deals in smoke-filled back rooms and underhanded friendships, and want to see politics become more transparent; in fact, transparency is a phrase that seems like a pre-requisite to any successful campaign. But opinion pieces like this letter in the Commercial Appeal in Tennessee challenge the assertion that money and voting power should be separated.

The Commercial Appeal letter calls for a graduated system where a voter receives a number of votes based on the amount of tax they paid. Everyone would cast one vote, and everyone would get one additional vote for each $1,000 paid in income taxes. In this way, the hyper-rich might have 100+ votes to each average American’s one or two votes.

The Appeal letter almost certainly is channeling the irony of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” But in fact it’s an idea that has also been put forward quite seriously. For example, syndicated columnist Walter Williams has argued that the bottom 50% of the US population, who combined pay less than 4% of all taxes collected, should not have an equally weighted voice with the top 10% of the US population, who pay upwards of 70% of all taxes collected. Why should people who don’t pay-in get to have a say?

But such suggestions draw dangerously near to a poll tax, banned in federal elections via the 24th amendment and extended to state elections (using the 14th amendment) in a later Supreme Court decision – e.g, it's illegal to charge people to vote, which was still being done in some American elections less than a half century ago. Poll taxes are unconstitutional, but all too reflective of how some Americans see voting and challenge the governing principle of equality in our democracy. (And it took a specific amendment to stop them in the 1960s, as not having a right to vote in the Constitution allowed the practice.)

Yet, no ideal could be more un-American than to equate income and wealth with the ability to participate in government. The framers created a House and Senate of citizens, having lived under a House of Lords with hereditary seats doled out to the wealthy elite; to go back to a system based entirely on wealth would be to subvert the very goals of our own Constitution.

The ramifications of an idea like this are disastrous; what if a mega-billionaire like Bill Gates moved to a small town or state? The Gates’ could effectively buy the entire election by holding enough ‘shares’ that, even if the majority of people who voted disagreed with him, it still couldn’t swing the election against his choice. How is that in any way democratic?

Some compare voting to owning stock; why should someone vote at a shareholder meeting if they didn’t pay to own a stock share? But this is comparing apples to golf clubs; I could live my entire life without ever drinking a Coke product, and so I have little-to-no reason to care how Coke-Cola spends its money. Their fiscal habits will probably not affect my daily life, unless I actively choose to use their products.

However, as an American citizen, the decisions of my elected politicians do have a daily effect on my life; on the roads I drive on, the taxes I pay on goods I buy, the laws I obey, and the schools I attended. Americans have more daily interaction with their federal and state government than just paying income tax.

Additionally, equating income tax and wealth to voting rights ignores the fact that many Americans are paying income tax right now, yet have no vote or voice in government. Residents of the District of Columbia pay a high income tax, but have no voting representative in Congress. The rallying cry of no taxation without representation is found on license plates pressed by the DC government.

The disenfranchisement of the people of D.C. is inexcusable, but it’s less controversial to separate voting from income and property based on other issues. Other groups, like employed persons under the age of 18, also pay income taxes to the state and federal government but have no vote at all. If taxes are the basis for government participation, does that mean the 14-year-old store clerk can now vote as well? Similarly, some people who own property in more than one city or state suggest that they should have a right to vote in each jurisdiction – arguing that if the value of their property can be affected by elected officials in a locality or state, isn’t it taxation without representation to not allow them to vote there? But most Americans do not agree. Government is by “the consent of the governed,” to be sure, but we regularly accept limitations on it, particularly when grounded in our basic value that we are all created equal.

So even if our Tennessee letter-writer was writing tongue in check, the sentiment behind the letter might resonate with some Americans. But we should never have to pay to get a vote in government. The U.S. government, on state, local and federal levels shouldn’t be like an exclusive country club with membership fees that block out most of society- it should be open to all. The fact this is even a possible part of the conversation – and that the poll tax was still in place in some states when John Kennedy was elected -- only serves to further highlight how attenuated our right (or lack thereof) to vote is in today’s America.

RTV: Money doesn’t grow on trees

Wed, 04 May 2011 09:42:52 -0700

Money isn't everything, except when you're talking about Democracy (in which case, apparently it is everything). Recently, several states have backed policies that likely will disenfranchise large numbers of their citizens in the name of reducing the deficit and becoming more efficient; policies involving filling vacancies, and maintaining voter rolls.

Recently, legislators in Louisiana have proposed a law to end special elections. Such elections have occurred more than 30 times in the past five years and have cost Louisiana approximately one million dollars in total. Instead of holding elections, positions would remain vacant until the end of the term, or a person would be appointed to fill the position. In the event of an appointment under the bill, the outgoing representative would nominate three people, to whom the representative is not related, who are of the same political party as the outgoing representative. The governor can then appoint one of these three people to fill the position. While the power of the official is limited (the appointed politician cannot run for a full term after their appointment is complete), during their time as representative they would have all the responsibilities and duties of a regularly elected official. Alternative bills call for the appointed person to be from the same district as the outgoing representative, presumably in an effort to find a person as much like the outgoing official as possible.

This entire process would not involve the voter, who the representative would serve. Tellingly, there will be no voter referendum to determine if the public wants to stop holding special elections. While removing special elections would save the state money, it would also cost the voters in Louisiana the chance to elect representatives they feel best represent their needs. Who may hold a state-wide elected office should not be a decision for one person to make; and even if it was, the decision to move to a system of appointments over elections is one that certainly should be made by the people at the polls.

It's telling that one office cannot be affected by an act of Louisiana or any other state: that of the U.S. House of Representatives. Our founders had great respect for the powers of the "people's House" and did not want anyone to serve there who had not been elected (and no one ever has). Grounded in the Constitution, all U.S. House vacancies are subject to election rather than appointment.

Perhaps using the same goals of efficiency and fiscal responsibility, in 2008 a handful of states purged voters from the rolls within three months of the date of the next election. This was a violation of federal law; not because the voters were purged without being notified, but because they were purged too close to an election. Under the Help America Vote Act, within 90 days of an election voters are only to be removed in the event they die, are incarcerated, or move out of state. As NPR covered, many people who had been purged had no idea they were removed from voter rolls. The NY Times reported various types of voter purging had occurred in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina.

For example, in the 90 days leading to the 2008 election, Michigan removed 33,000 people from the rolls in the name of efficiency. About 11,500 voters had moved out of state or died during that period. This means, unless Michigan incarcerated over 21,000 voters in 90 days, thousands of people may well have been unjustly and unlawfully removed from the voter registration polls.

While public outcry in 2008 caused many states to allow those purged without cause back onto the voter rolls, this was not the end of one state's (Colorado) voter purging actions. Fast Forward until today, where the current Colorado law seeks to send ballots automatically to all active voters during election season. An active voter is someone who voted in the last general election, and is currently in good standing in the voter rolls.

Today in Colorado, after a person misses voting in one general election (such as governor in 2010 and president in 2008), the individual is sent apostcard which is intended to alert the resident they are about to be purged from the records. Voters can respond to this letter to stay active on the registrar. However, anyone who has recently moved, has their postcard delivered to the wrong address, or is unsure what to do with the postcard when it arrives, would be purged just as if they knowingly failed to respond. Since the purging is automatic, and not an affirmative action undertaken by the voter, thousands of voters have been purged and didn't realize it until the next election when they were not sent a ballot.

FairVote recently found that in Fort Collins, Colorado, for example, there were 80,250 active voters in March 2009 after a high turnout presidential election, but only 62,260 active voters in March 2011 after a lower turnout governor's race. What's more, Fort Collins only votes by mail. Since only active voters receive mail ballots, the number of voters receiving ballots dropped by almost 18,000 people during this time period.

While this might seem efficient, it actually means that everyone who misses one election is placed under a harsh burden when trying to vote, as they have been purged from the mailing list. Election officials have acknowledged that it is possible to send a ballot to every registered person, regardless of it they voted in the last election or not. However, officials claimed that the expense associated with an all-inclusive mailing does not justify doing so.

These are further examples of voting rights, or the lack thereof, being used as a bartering chip. It seems that, in states struggling to break even financially, the first thing to go is people's participation in their government. But how are people meant to care about their government when their government is taking actions to make it more difficult to hear their input? When did democracy get a price-tag? While fiscal responsibility is an admirable goal, saving money should never be at the expense of someone's rights. Avoiding running democracy on the cheap is yet another reason to establish a right to vote in the Constitution.

Voting: A Right, A Privilege, or A Responsibility?

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:45:34 -0700

When Americans talk about their democracy, they typically emphasize the importance of the right to vote. But the fact is that, unlike other democratic rights protected in the First Amendment, voting rights do not have clear constitutional protections. State legislatures have the right to appoint electors in presidential races without holding elections, for example, and states can enact a variety of policies that directly or indirectly infringe on suffrage rights. While strengthening voting rights in the Constitution would seem like a logical step, there's a potential political barrier: confusion about the meaning of "right."

This essay invites readers to question whether the ability to vote should be a right, a privilege, or a responsibility. For the ease of readership, I will define the necessary terms.

Privilege (n): An immunity or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantaged of most.
Right (n): That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, or moral principles.
Responsibility (n): Being answerable or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.

At first glance, it's easy to view these terms as mutually exclusive. From their definitions, we can see that what is a "privilege" cannot be a right since rights are enjoyed by everyone, while a privilege is reserved for a select group. Likewise, it's impossible for an individual to take on the burden of responsibility if they lack to the right to vote in the first place.

Despite this initial judgment, many people view the ability to vote as all three simultaneously and weigh "right" after "privilege" or "responsibility." For example, many believe the ability to vote is a privilege granted to today's eligible voters by those who fought for it in the past either through war, grassroots movements, or legislative battles. These struggles have kept the United States as an independent nation and granted us the right to vote with the passage of the 15^th, 19^th, 24^th, and 26^th amendment, in addition to the legislative victory of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. From this perspective, it is a privilege to live in the United States, standing on the shoulders of these past giants, and we have a responsibility to vote because it honors those who have put their lives on the line to protect it.

Indeed a study conducted in 2006 by Peter D. Hart Research Associates found far most participants in a series of focus groups saw voting as a responsibility or a privilege more than as a right. Many categorized voting primarily as a privilege because previous generations had fought for it and other countries don't enjoy the same freedom. The plurality of participants saw it primarily as a responsibility because it highlights the importance of choosing the government. Many of these participants chose not to classify it primarily as a "right" because the word "right" suggested to them a sense of entitlement.

Many participants also believed that fraud was a bigger problem than disenfranchisement. Although these beliefs are not based in reality (proven cases of voter fraud are miniscule compared to clear cases of denial of suffrage), they say something very important about the general mindset of American voters. When it comes to voting, "right" is a dangerous word since it suggests the ability to vote has simply been given to you without a fight -- and things that can make voting harder but prevent fraud like voter registration laws, requirements for photo identification and inconvenient polling places are minor compared to the sacrifices of past generations. In this mindset, anyone who might not vote due to such barriers is not accepting responsibility for how important it is and not recognizing what a privilege it is to have the right to vote.

As is obvious from the Peter Hart study, a common misconception is the word "right" denoting a sense of entitlement. People who hold this view shy away from considering the ability to vote a right because it suggests it has simply been given to us without historical struggles, thereby demeaning the individuals who have laid their lives on the line to forge and preserve our freedoms.

From a rational perspective, this is shortsighted when one considers the nature of the United States Bill of Rights, a document outlining the protected rights an individual enjoys as a U.S. citizen. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were written and ratified as the Bill of Rights to ensure that government wouldn't encroach on certain fundamental rights, including but not limited to such cornerstones of representative democracy as: free speech, free press, free religion, and free assembly. No one denies that we fought for these rights during the Revolutionary War, yet they were still called "rights" because of their value as the fundamental fabric of our democracy. With the ability to exercise our voice and elect our representatives being today recognized as another cornerstone of a healthy democracy, why not apply this same logic to voting?

How one views voting rights is clearly a moral judgment. By asking ourselves if the ability to vote should be a privilege, right, or responsibility, we ask ourselves, "what is the true nature of democracy" and "what is ultimately just." Certain governments have taken the moral judgment into their hands and have taken actions to help define the ability to vote into one of these three categorizes. Below are a few considerations:

State policies accepting voting as a "privilege" more than "right": United States' State legislatures often act on the sense of voting being more a privilege than a right. It is painfully obvious, when we examine cases of permanent disenfranchisement of citizens with felony convictions, superfluous voter identification requirements and complex voter registration laws, that voting is often viewed as a privilege to be enjoyed by "worthy" people and not by others. Without uniform election laws, patch-work election rules and regulations varying state-by-state will continue to disenfranchise millions of voters countrywide (particularly those who have committed a felony in the past, don't possess government issued identification, or lack a fixed residence, but more broadly many people who lose their right due to our general mode of running elections on the cheap).
"Responsibility" has more than one meaning: Nations like Australia that have instituted mandatory voting base their policy on voting being a responsibility of all eligible voters. Yet in many Americans' definition of "responsibility, such a requirement would lead "irresponsible" people to vote who did not care enough about voting to go to the polls without fear of a fine.
An international perspective on voting as a right: In 2005, the European Court on Human Rights found that the United Kingdom had breached the human rights of prisoners by denying them the vote, ruling that British policies were disenfranchising 80,000 incarcerated British citizens. The Human Right Act of 1998, which had incorporated most of the European Convention on Human rights into British law, established the right to vote as an essential right of all humans. This ruling was grounded in voting as a right, not a privilege, but the British government has fought against implementing the ruling despite the 1998 law

Here at FairVote, we do a lot of work on voting rights. Whether it is to help ensure each vote is counted equally, each voter has a sufficient opportunity to exercise their right to vote, and whether voters have meaningful choices and a fair chance to win representation, FairVote sees voting as a fundamental right of citizenship equal to our First Amendment freedoms in its importance for sustaining representative democracy

Even though the United States Constitution has several amendments which stop voter discrimination, it lacks a sufficient base to guarantee voting as a right. To overcome the states' view of voting as a privilege, we support the right to vote explicitly enshrined in a Constitutional amendment (H.J.RES.28), a bill currently sponsored by Representative Jessie Jackson. Jr. Only with its passage -- or passage of a bill more simply affirming voting as a right - can voting truly be considered a right rather than a privilege.

This isn't to say we are ungrateful. It is undoubtedly a privilege to live in the United State and we are right to honor the men and women who made our democracy what it is today. We all enjoy the benefits and freedoms of living in a liberalized democracy which encourages us to exercise our voice and be an active citizen. While it is a privilege to live in the United States, FairVote believes the ability to vote should be enshrined as a right within the U.S. Constitution to uphold suffrage rights for all citizens - both for preventing fraud and prohibiting disenfranchisement of voters who would, in the absence of restrictive registration/administrative rules, be eligible.

So we will end where we started, addressing the question, "is the ability to vote more of a right, a privilege, or a responsibility?" One's answer forces you to make a moral judgment and think about the nature of our democracy. Should the ability to vote be considered a privilege, thereby allowing disenfranchisement of certain groups of voters, or a right, granted to as many people as legally possible? For us, the answer is clear: respect for every vote and every voice means that while we honor voting and our nation's heroes, we oppose the government having the power to infringe upon our fundamental right to elect our representatives and exercise our voice through our vote.

The Right to Vote: The case of the people of our nation’s capital

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:26:43 -0700

On March 29th, DC Vote held an advocacy day to meet with the staff of every U.S. Senator and discuss the need for voting rights for the people of the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C, has more than a half million people, more than Wyoming. Although the District has a delegate in the U.S. House (Eleanor Holmes Norton) who can propose legislation and serve on committee, she does not have voting rights in Congress. The District lacks even a delegate in the U.S. Senate, even though Congress can veto any bill passed by the District and often considers “riders’ on bills that would change laws governing the residents of the District – a classic case of “taxation without representation.” The issue has become heated recently; Mayor of DC Vincent Gray was arrested at a protest calling for more freedom for the District to spend its own funds.

The DC Vote coalition advocated for the ability for the District’s government to use its own funds for programs they deemed necessary for the stability and growth of the District. As stated by DC Vote, “The House has passed a budget bill that would prohibit the District from spending its own funds on programs that prevent the spread of the local AIDS epidemic and help low-income women obtain safe reproductive health care.” The District's budget has been balanced for well over a decade, and the funds for such programs are available, but unusable without Congressional approval.

The disenfranchisement of all of the District is yet another area in the right to vote conversation. The District is home to more than 600,000 people who lack basic representation in their government. In fact, it wasn’t until the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 that District's residents were allowed to vote for President of the US, despite being drafted into the US military and paying some of the highest taxes in the country.

The District has no final authority over its own budget, no direct sway in the national budget, and no vote in the consideration of federal laws they are subject to. This means that issues, like school vouchers within the District's boarders, gun control within DC, reproductive rights, and marijuana use are controlled more by representatives from South Dakota than they are by representatives from the District. Washington College law professor Jamie Raskin points out that “when congressional representation is denied, other injuries follow, such as the inability to obtain equal services and a fair share of federal resources…District residents, by virtue of their lack of political representation, have a lesser opportunity to compete for federal resources in Congress.”

It is true the District is not a state, and from this stems the argument that the District's residents don’t “deserve’ the same representation as a state resident. Yet, the District's residents are a global anomaly; America is the only country in the world that disenfranchises the resident of its capital city.

Contrary to popular belief, the District is not primarily a home for transient politicos who have no vested interest in their community. There are tens of thousands of people who were born within the the District's city limits and will live their entire lives here without ever being represented in the government that is only blocks from their front door; in fact more than 50% of the District's residents have been DC residents for longer than 20 years.

Opponents argue that the District is home to too many federal lands and buildings to be autonomous. Yet, 88% of Nevada, 68% of Utah, and 50% of California are federal lands, and all these states of course have voting representatives in Congress, including two U.S. Senators.

It is also undeniable there is a racial component to this argument; if a state, the District would be the nation’s only majority-black state. Given that none of our 100 U.S. Senators are African American, the lack of representation for the District takes on even greater meaning.

Without a direct voice in Congress, the District cannot expect to gain control over its own affairs. Efforts have been made to rectify this wrong, but all have fallen short.

- DC statehood constitutional amendment: HR 265 is an often proposed amendment (you can read the text here) that calls for the District to be a state, equal to the other 50 states in the US. Proposed by Eleanor Holmes Norton, the bill has not seen much movement in the 112th Congress. While the DC Voting Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1978, it expired before enough states ratified it, and therefore could not take effect. 38 states were required for ratification; the amendment was passed in 16 states.
- By party rule, democrats allowed Norton to vote on the floor during the 111th Congress, if her vote was not a decisive vote. However, this year, Republicans in the House moved to have her vote removed, on the very first day of Congress’s session. While Rep. Norton can vote in subcommittees, she can not vote on the floor of Congress. Rep. Norton can not vote in the Committee of the Whole.
- In the 111th Congress, the DC House Voting Rights Act (H.R.157/S.160) was proposed. Sponsored by Rep. Norton in the House, and Senators Lieberman and Hatch in the Senate. While the bill passed in the Senate, it did not pass overall. The bill would have given a full voting member to Congress, and an additional full voting member to Utah.

Establishing a citizenship right to vote wouldn’t guarantee that the people of the District would have representation and a fully protected right to vote, but it would require our courts to bring stricter scrutiny to the problem –and create a clearer reason for our policymakers to once and for all redress this wrong. In the meantime, let’s ask our members of Congress to treat the District’s citizens with respect and not trample on home rule powers.