What "Right to Vote"?

[GarMan]

I know this is an old debate in this forum, but somebody said it again.  This time, it comes from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and blithering idiot...

<snip>

In the United States, the right to vote is fundamental — the foundation for all other civil rights and liberties. It is not simply another political tool subject to partisan manipulation. Unfortunately this is exactly how Florida Republicans have treated this basic right.

<snip>

What right?  Moron... 

[Vandy Vol]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973.shtml

[GH2001]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973.shtml

I think Garman may be balking at the unconditional nature of her claim. There are certain things one needs to do. A lot of libs want no questions asked at voting booths so that they can bus in the masses aka their constituents. I think we all know that. Its a right, yes. But you need to meet certain qualifications, be registered and prove who you are. Thats not too much to ask.

[Vandy Vol]

I think Garman may be balking at the unconditional nature of her claim. There are certain things one needs to do. A lot of libs want no questions asked at voting booths so that they can bus in the masses aka their constituents. I think we all know that. Its a right, yes. But you need to meet certain qualifications, be registered and prove who you are. Thats not too much to ask.

I agree with you.  No right is unconditional.  Any right can be removed or altered, so long as the alteration or removal of that right is narrowly tailored to achieve only a specific and legitimate government interest.

But the bolded part of your post?  I'm pretty sure GarMan doesn't agree with that, at least from what I recall from earlier posts...

[GarMan]

I agree with you.  No right is unconditional.  Any right can be removed or altered, so long as the alteration or removal of that right is narrowly tailored to achieve only a specific and legitimate government interest.

But the bolded part of your post?  I'm pretty sure GarMan doesn't agree with that, at least from what I recall from earlier posts... 

Let's try this again, from your beloved Wikis...

There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).

And there's this, again from your beloved Wikis...

In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.

15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age

Then, there's this...

WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
By MICHAEL C. DORF
 
<snip>
Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election.
<snip>

And further, fastfowarding to Section II, Paragraph B, of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore...

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. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Your link to a section of the Voting Rights Act only prevents any sort of "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."  This does not in any way guarantee any fundamental or universal right to vote in the United States.

Again, there is no right to vote. 

[Vandy Vol]

Amendment 19 of the United States Constitution refers to the "right to vote."

The Voting Rights Act refers to the "right to vote."

If it isn't a right, then why is it referred to as the "right to vote?"  Why would laws and founding documents refer to something that doesn't exist?

WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
By MICHAEL C. DORF
 
<snip>
Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election.
<snip>

Dorf's musings are completely theoretical in nature.  Nothing in the opinion expressly states that there is no right to vote:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10217085158340501915&q=%22bush+v.+palm+beach+county+canvassing+board%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,1

He's claiming that, should a state decide to not allow its citizens to vote in a Presidential election, then they could do so.  The Amendments to the federal Constitution which attempt to insure that voting rights are not violated focus on the class of effected voters; if a state were to deny Presidential voting rights to all citizens, it would not be focused on any particular class, and thus would, in theory, be considered constitutional.

But no states have done this.  In fact, every state has a constitution which (yet again) references the right to vote.  Every state has a constitution which details how the process of allowing its citizens to vote in Presidential elections is supposed to occur.  If you take the time to read the decision that Dorf cites, then you'll note that the opinion references Florida's constitutional right to vote.

Dorf's opinion is a theoretical worst case scenario of what states could be able to do absent their own current constitutions, as well what states could be able to do absent a federal appellate system which would, in all likelihood, hear the numerous challenges of such actions and rule that the right to vote is pretty solidly implied within the Constitution; it's not a literal interpretation of constitutional rights.

[GarMan]

Amendment 19 of the United States Constitution refers to the "right to vote."

The Voting Rights Act refers to the "right to vote."

If it isn't a right, then why is it referred to as the "right to vote?"  Why would laws and founding documents refer to something that doesn't exist?

Oh, I agree...  Everyone refers to some mystical "right to vote" as though it exists, but it clearly does not.  It's a fallacy. 

Dorf's musings are completely theoretical in nature. 

I agree...  While they are theoretical in nature, the basic premise is still true.  There is no right to vote.  The Supreme Court's decision clearly states...

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote

From here, it defers to the states, and the states can do what they will within the confines of the Constitution. 

[Vandy Vol]

There is no express federal right to vote, correct.

But enough federal laws exist, and enough wording within the federal Constitution exists, that if the issue were to be brought up on appeal, I doubt that any court would allow a state to completely deny all of its citizens the right to vote in a Presidential election.  It would be similar to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade:  while no express right to abortion exists in the Constitution, there's enough language regarding the generally referenced "right to privacy" that it's reasonable to assume such an interpretation was intended.

Aside from that, the right does exist in every state's constitution.  So yes, they could alter their constitutions, but currently it exists.  State right or federal right, it's still an existing right.  If a state were to alter its constitution so as to remove this right, then yes, it would no longer exist, but it does currently exist.  And any attempt to remove that right would probably be overturned based upon a reasonable interpretation of the federal Constitution.

[GarMan]

There is no express federal right to vote, correct.

Done...  Now, stop whining...

[Vandy Vol]

Done...  Now, stop whining...

Not whining, just clarifying.  The issue has never been directly addressed so as to determine whether an implied federal right exists, but there is not an express federal right.  But there is also not an express right to abortion, yet it was determined to exist implicitly when the issue was directly addressed.

Aside from the federal issue, each state has express voting rights for citizens.  That's why I replied when it was asked:

What right?  Moron... 

[GarMan]

Not whining, just clarifying.  The issue has never been directly addressed so as to determine whether an implied federal right exists, but there is not an express federal right.  But there is also not an express right to abortion, yet it was determined to exist implicitly when the issue was directly addressed.

Aside from the federal issue, each state has express voting rights for citizens.  That's why I replied when it was asked:

Again, the moron is talking at the federal level.  There is no explicit right to vote at the federal level.  Her statement was incorrect. 

[Vandy Vol]

Again, the moron is talking at the federal level.  There is no explicit right to vote at the federal level.  Her statement was incorrect.

Meh, I think you're reading too much into ambiguous wording from a small portion of the article.  She stated it was a fundamental right in the United States.  I guess you could infer that she suggested this was a federal right, but you could also infer that she suggested this is a fundamental state right across the entire United States.

Afterall, the article was focused on state legislation concerning the manner in which Florida residents could register to vote (or rather, who could assist them with registration), as well as whether early voting should be continued.  There wasn't a federal issue involved, other than the Florida Secretary of State asserting that portions of the federal Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional; that was simply a reaction to people's accusations that this new state bill wasn't sent to the DoJ for review.

Sure, if she intended to imply that there is an express federal right to vote, then she's wrong.  If she intended to imply that there are uniform rights to vote on the state level across the United States, then she's right.  And if she intended to imply that there is a fundamental right to vote that is implied on the federal level, then I would agree with her, although I do realize that such a concept has yet to be established by judicial opinion.

[Vandy Vol]

Just as further clarification as to how Rep. Schultz's comment can easily be interpreted as correct, you have to look no further than one of your own quotes:

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. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.

...

History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.  When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.

Based on that, I see no problem with her classification of the right to vote as fundamental in the United States.  As you've stated, yes, this right could be taken away by the states.  But according to this quote, the fact that states currently provide a right to vote makes it a fundamental right that it is protected by the federal Constitution...so long as the state maintains that right.

[GarMan]

If she intended to imply that there are uniform rights to vote on the state level across the United States, then she's right.  And if she intended to imply that there is a fundamental right to vote that is implied on the federal level, then I would agree with her, although I do realize that such a concept has yet to be established by judicial opinion. 

Based on that, I see no problem with her classification of the right to vote as fundamental in the United States.  As you've stated, yes, this right could be taken away by the states.  But according to this quote, the fact that states currently provide a right to vote makes it a fundamental right that it is protected by the federal Constitution...so long as the state maintains that right.

No matter how you want to define it or twist the meaning, there is no right to vote, and the Constitution does not guarantee any right to vote.  It only limits a state's ability to deny voting under certain circumstances.  Any right to vote granted at the state level is fundamental only to the extent that the state legislature defines such rights.  This does not mean that a citizen's right to vote is fundamental across the United States.  As the ruling states...

The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

In fact, within the same paragraph, prior to the above statement...

...the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. 

So much for her fundamental position... 

Now, if we want to play what-ifs...  If she said that voting was a fundamental right in a Democracy, a Democratic Republic or even a Republic, she would technically be correct, but that's not what she said...

In the United States, the right to vote is fundamental — the foundation for all other civil rights and liberties.

That statement is completely inaccurate. 

By the way, I wonder if she uses LEDs or CFLs in her home. 

[Vandy Vol]

Law.cornell.edu respectfully disagrees.

Also:

[GarMan]

Law.cornell.edu respectfully disagrees.

No they don't, CupCake. 

Reading is fundamental.  You should learn how to do it sometime. 

[Vandy Vol]

No they don't, CupCake.

Reading is fundamental.  You should learn how to do it sometime.

 

There is no right to vote.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's retort, as quoted by Cornell (and as already cited in this discussion as a response to your stance):

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. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.

Because every state has chosen a statewide election, there is a federal constitutional right to vote.  That's what the whole "unless and until" phrase denotes in the English language; Y doesn't exist until X happens.  If X happens, then Y exists.

Can they change this?  Yes.  But, as of right now, they haven't, and according to the Supreme Court, that means that there is currently a federal constitutional right to vote due to the fact that all state legislatures have chosen statewide elections.  Saying that there is no right to vote is very different than saying that there could be no right to vote if states changed their constitutions.  You might as well argue that there is no right to free speech due to the fact that the Constitution could be amended so as to remove that right if Congress chose to do so.

This does not in any way guarantee any fundamental or universal right to vote in the United States.

. . .

So much for her fundamental position...

Chief Justice Rehnquist's retort, as quoted by Cornell (and as already cited in this discussion as a response to your stance):

When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.

And just in case you intend on dismissing this as merely meaning that it is only "fundamental" on a state level:

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise.  Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise.  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) ("Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment").

All of this summarized?  There is no federal constitutional right to vote unless states choose a statewide election.  When they choose a statewide election, a federal constitutional right to vote exists.  This right, once in existence, is fundamental in nature due to the fact that it is federally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[GH2001]

Meh, I think you're reading too much into ambiguous wording from a small portion of the article.  She stated it was a fundamental right in the United States.  I guess you could infer that she suggested this was a federal right, but you could also infer that she suggested this is a fundamental state right across the entire United States.

Afterall, the article was focused on state legislation concerning the manner in which Florida residents could register to vote (or rather, who could assist them with registration), as well as whether early voting should be continued.  There wasn't a federal issue involved, other than the Florida Secretary of State asserting that portions of the federal Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional; that was simply a reaction to people's accusations that this new state bill wasn't sent to the DoJ for review.

Sure, if she intended to imply that there is an express federal right to vote, then she's wrong.  If she intended to imply that there are uniform rights to vote on the state level across the United States, then she's right.  And if she intended to imply that there is a fundamental right to vote that is implied on the federal level, then I would agree with her, although I do realize that such a concept has yet to be established by judicial opinion.

, if it wasn't Debbie Wasserman Slutz, I would probably agree with this, but most who have followed her through the years and know her ideology can probably see GarMan's point. She is one fed loving, totalitarian bitch. If Joe Lieberman or Jim DeMint had said it (2 guys who I think are generally regarded as pragmatic), I might see your argument more.

[GH2001]

No they don't, CupCake. 

Reading is fundamental.  You should learn how to do it sometime.

Cupcake eh?

Why dont you 2 just go fuck each other, have cigars afterwards and get it over with.

[AUTiger1]

Cupcake eh?

Why dont you 2 just go fuck each other, have cigars afterwards and get it over with.

Was just about to come in here and post that.