Do we have a constitutional right to vote?

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this.

The way I read the Constitution, there is no affirmative right to vote specified. What there is are restrictions on preventing someone from voting based on race, sex, etc.

But if a state decides no one has the right to vote, then those restrictions don't apply. If no one can vote, then no one is being discriminated against.

I think this is definitely the case for presidential elections. It's less clear for the House or Senate.

I occasionally get caught in twitter tussles on this. I never get much support for my position.

Famously, the Bush v. Gore decision agrees with me. (Or, I guess, me with it.)

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States”


As a legal question? IANAL, but probably not.

As a logical question? Clearly yes, as the whole system of constitutional government makes no sense without it.

As a political question? Goes back to the fundamental conflict that defines our nation -- arguing over who, exactly, is "America".


For the House (Art. I, Sec. 2) and Senate (17th Amendment), yes.  State Constitutions, I believe, generally guarantee the right to vote to citizens of the respective states.  (See e.g., N.Y. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 1 and Art. II, Sec. 1.)


drummerboy said:

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this.

The way I read the Constitution, there is no affirmative right to vote specified. What there is are restrictions on preventing someone from voting based on race, sex, etc.

But if a state decides no one has the right to vote, then those restrictions don't apply. If no one can vote, then no one is being discriminated against.

I think this is definitely the case for presidential elections. It's less clear for the House or Senate.

I occasionally get caught in twitter tussles on this. I never get much support for my position.

Famously, the Bush v. Gore decision agrees with me. (Or, I guess, me with it.)

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States”

The full quote - "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Also from that case - "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966)"

Don't confuse two issues.  The first one is whether a state has to hold an election to choose electors - the Constitution doesn't require that.

The second one (more relevant to your question) is that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to vote, when an election is conducted.


nohero said:


Don't confuse two issues.  The first one is whether a state has to hold an election to choose electors - the Constitution doesn't require that.


What I don't understand about that is how choosing electors other than via voting would be a "republican form of government," which the constitution requires.

Or is this saying that there's a right to vote for state officials, but not necessarily for federal officials who arguably represent the states, not the actual people?


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this.

The way I read the Constitution, there is no affirmative right to vote specified. What there is are restrictions on preventing someone from voting based on race, sex, etc.

But if a state decides no one has the right to vote, then those restrictions don't apply. If no one can vote, then no one is being discriminated against.

I think this is definitely the case for presidential elections. It's less clear for the House or Senate.

I occasionally get caught in twitter tussles on this. I never get much support for my position.

Famously, the Bush v. Gore decision agrees with me. (Or, I guess, me with it.)

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States”

The full quote - "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Also from that case - "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966)"

Don't confuse two issues.  The first one is whether a state has to hold an election to choose electors - the Constitution doesn't require that.

The second one (more relevant to your question) is that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to vote, when an election is conducted.

"The second one (more relevant to your question) is that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to vote, when an election is conducted."

not sure how you come to this conclusion. The manner of selecting electors is up to the states, not the Constitution.


drummerboy said:

"The second one (more relevant to your question) is that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to vote, when an election is conducted."

not sure how you come to this conclusion. The manner of selecting electors is up to the states, not the Constitution.

We're not disagreeing. The last part of my sentence that you quoted is "when an election is conducted".


PVW said:

What I don't understand about that is how choosing electors other than via voting would be a "republican form of government," which the constitution requires.

Or is this saying that there's a right to vote for state officials, but not necessarily for federal officials who arguably represent the states, not the actual people?

They never changed the language in the original version of the Constitution, so the states choose how to select electors. Senators and Representatives are directly elected, in contrast to the President, under the Constitution.


The House of Lords has just voted to make misogyny a crime. An unelected bunch of elitists is more progressive than the US Congress.

 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!