NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there a specific right to vote in federal elections? I see a number of amendments that prevent the exclusion of different groups, but no specific right to vote.

Didn't the USSC find in Bush vs. Gore that there was no Constitutional right to vote for electors for the President?

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html

It appears that all the state has to do is choose something other than a statewide election for electors. Then, bingo, the right to vote for Presidential electors is gone.

Anyone else read it that way?

Basically you're right, theres no constitutional right to vote, just many rights why you can't be denied votes, which implies (theres many implied laws in the constitution) that you have the right. Same with Habeas Corpus, it doesn't say you have the right to it, but it says it can't be taken away thus meaning you have to intrinsically have it already as a citizen.

My understanding of the electoral college was that states were free to allocate their votes however they wish - with or without a popular vote.

Congressional elections on the other hand are another matter.

That was my understanding of the US constitution. If I remember rightly - and considering my exams I hope I do - it wasn't until the age of Jackson and the admission of new states in the west that it became common for States to elect presidential electors.

Functionally you are correct. All the constitution requires is that once a state chooses to allow a vote, it does not discriminate based on race, gender, etc.

Basically, a state need not have elections though if it does, it must do so without discrimination.

Now, of course, how a state handles its electoral college votes is in many cases a matter of state constitutions.

My understanding of the electoral college was that states were free to allocate their votes however they wish - with or without a popular vote.

I thought some states had passed laws that said the electors had to cast their votes for the candidate who got the most votes from the general populace?

I thought some states had passed laws that said the electors had to cast their votes for the candidate who got the most votes from the general populace?

a few states have done so, however they still have triggering mechanisms, only take effect if states with 50% or more of the electoral votes also do the same.

a few states have done so, however they still have triggering mechanisms, only take effect if states with 50% or more of the electoral votes also do the same.
Only Maryland, I think.

My understanding of the electoral college was that states were free to allocate their votes however they wish - with or without a popular vote.

Congressional elections on the other hand are another matter.
There is an amendment (17th) that provides for the direct election of Senators.

Functionally you are correct. All the constitution requires is that once a state chooses to allow a vote, it does not discriminate based on race, gender, etc.

Basically, a state need not have elections though if it does, it must do so without discrimination.

Now, of course, how a state handles its electoral college votes is in many cases a matter of state constitutions.
My quest is to keep stupid people from voting... This doesn't seem to be the way.

This article (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2825) is a little scary and a lot funny... Europeans want vote in _our_ elections.

American presidential elections are not “home affairs.” American decisions have repercussions all over the globe...

Hence, the world should be given the right to vote.

Is there a specific right to vote in federal elections? I see a number of amendments that prevent the exclusion of different groups, but no specific right to vote.

Didn't the USSC find in Bush vs. Gore that there was no Constitutional right to vote for electors for the President?

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html

It appears that all the state has to do is choose something other than a statewide election for electors. Then, bingo, the right to vote for Presidential electors is gone.

Anyone else read it that way?

The COnstitution limits the reasons why a state can refuse someone a vote. It doesn't refuse them the power to refuse them. An excellent point is felons. In some states, felons can vote. In others, they can't while serving their sentence(and fr a specified period afterward), but can vote after their time is served. In still others, anyone convicted of a felony loses the right to vote for life. The Constitution does not limit the power of states to decide if felons can vote.

This article (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2825) is a little scary and a lot funny... Europeans want vote in _our_ elections.
That's a fairly biased source taking an ironic newspaper editorial out of context, no?

That's a fairly biased source taking an ironic newspaper editorial out of context, no?
Actually, I thought that the idea of Europeans voting in American elections would have been quite popular on NSG.

The idea of Americans voting in European elections is even more interesting, though... With our statistical advantage, maybe we could finally instill some common sense in the old world.

I'd suggest limiting the vote to nondelusional people, but that'd be considered racist because it disqualifies all people who aren't atheist or agnostic. ;(

I'd suggest limiting the vote to nondelusional people, but that'd be considered racist because it disqualifies all people who aren't atheist or agnostic. ;(
There is really a way to categorize religious people into a race? i would never have thought that possible. And even so, how would that disqualification be promoting racial superiority of the non-religious race?

Are you sure you don't mean discriminatory? English is a tough language. There are specific words that mean specific things.

These, days, the term "racism" is often used to cover all kinds of ridiculous discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, religion, gender, age, height, shoe size, name length...

These, days, the term "racism" is often used to cover all kinds of ridiculous discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, religion, gender, age, height, shoe size, name length...
Yes, and that completely ruins a perfectly good word. In fact, the word is used to describe any act by any white person that causes any discomfort in any black person. To show how the word 'racist' has been trivialized, let me give you an example from my wife's classroom.

She called a parent to schedule a conference with an under-performing child. Same thing she does every week, it seems, just the students change. At the conference, she related that the student wasn't turning in assignments. The mother objected and called my wife a racist. WTF?

Obviously, the mom's vocabulary wasn't big enough to call my wife 'rigid and judgemental', which is the closest appropriate epithet that I can think of for someone who insists on following rules... But this is just one reason why we, who can read and write, should stick up for the proper uses of the proper words.

These, days, the term "racism" is often used to cover all kinds of ridiculous discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, religion, gender, age, height, shoe size, name length...

No. No, it isn't. You just misused the word.

Actually, I thought that the idea of Europeans voting in American elections would have been quite popular on NSG.

The idea of Americans voting in European elections is even more interesting, though... With our statistical advantage, maybe we could finally instill some common sense in the old world.

Yeah, 'cause electing Bush was a real show of that. :rolleyes: If that was meant to be satirical, I apologise.

In all honesty, I hope the american populace does show some common sense this time round and elect someone that doesn't believe that their god tells them to go to war to remove a dictator.

I hope the British populace will be sensible enough to elect one that doesn't follow said someone.

I won't hold my breath on either.

Is there a specific right to vote in federal elections? I see a number of amendments that prevent the exclusion of different groups, but no specific right to vote.

Didn't the USSC find in Bush vs. Gore that there was no Constitutional right to vote for electors for the President?

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html

It appears that all the state has to do is choose something other than a statewide election for electors. Then, bingo, the right to vote for Presidential electors is gone.

Anyone else read it that way?

As Neo Art has already confirmed, you are correct in your reading of Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-949), 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ("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 one of the many reasons the majority opinion in the case should be considered legally as well as politically suspect. (But I'm not trying to create a separate argument about that.)

Nonetheless, I was under the vague impression that a general right to vote was considered an unenumerated right protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses. Here is relevant language from Reynolds v. Sims (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533), 377 U.S. 533, 554-555 (1964)(footnotes omitted):

Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=110&invol=651), 110 U.S. 651 , and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=238&invol=383), 238 U.S. 383 . In Mosley the Court stated that it is "as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a box." 238 U.S., at 386. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=238&invol=347), 238 U.S. 347 , Lane v. Wilson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=268), 307 U.S. 268 , nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=313&invol=299#315), 313 U.S. 299, 315 , nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing, Ex parte Siebold (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=100&invol=371), 100 U.S. 371 , United States v. Saylor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=322&invol=385), 322 U.S. 385 . As the Court stated in Classic, "Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted . . . ." 313 U.S., at 315 . Racially based gerrymandering, Gomillion v. Lightfoot (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=339), 364 U.S. 339 , and the conducting of white primaries, Nixon v. Herndon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=273&invol=536), 273 U.S. 536 , Nixon v. Condon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=286&invol=73), 286 U.S. 73 , Smith v. Allwright (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=321&invol=649), 321 U.S. 649 , Terry v. Adams (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=345&invol=461), 345 U.S. 461 , both of which result in denying to some citizens their right to vote, have been held to be constitutionally impermissible. And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.

I guess one can dismiss the language of Reynolds as overbroad and not applicable to the specific circumstances in Bush v. Gore, but I'm not entirely convinced by that argument.

(And if I'm confused .... :confused:)

As Neo Art has already confirmed, you are correct in your reading of Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-949), 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ("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 one of the many reasons the majority opinion in the case should be considered legally as well as politically suspect. (But I'm not trying to create a separate argument about that.)

Nonetheless, I was under the vague impression that a general right to vote was considered an unenumerated right protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses. Here is relevant language from Reynolds v. Sims (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533), 377 U.S. 533, 554-555 (1964)(footnotes omitted):
[quoted text deleted]
(And if I'm confused .... :confused:)
The Bush vs Gore decision referred to another decision...McPherson vs Blacker, that I couldn't read without registering.

The only reason I'm even interested is that I keep hearing that there is no Constitutional right to vote in federal elections. It appears that the only shred of truth in that statement regards in state decisions for President.

The only reason I'm even interested is that I keep hearing that there is no Constitutional right to vote in federal elections. It appears that the only shred of truth in that statement regards in state decisions for President.

Apologies Myrm. I read "federal elections" as "presidential elections". The decision in Bush v. Gore had to do with, specifically, presidential elections, which are elected in a manner far different than congressional elections.

I think, by "federal elections", people mean (incorrectly, but I admit, I used it in that context in this discussion), not elections of people to offices in the federal governmenent, but elections that are inter-state in nature.

For example, the election of a senator is a state election of a federal office. Only the people of New York vote for the senator from New York, even though Senator from New York is a federal office.

As such, the only true cross state election we have, an election "done at the federal (IE national) level" is the election for president, rather than an election done at state level, for federal office.

You are correct that there is a right ot vote for congressmen, if you wish to consider that a federal election, and not a state election of federal office.

I'd suggest limiting the vote to nondelusional people, but that'd be considered racist because it disqualifies all people who aren't atheist or agnostic. ;(

A more accurate word would be "bigoted", which also describes your statement.

"Belief in God" and "sanity" are NOT mutually exclusive.

Belief in God =/= delusion.

I think, by "federal elections", people mean (incorrectly, but I admit, I used it in that context in this discussion), not elections of people to offices in the federal governmenent, but elections that are inter-state in nature.

And that underscores the importance of defining terms before the discussion is started. Because of the context that I've seen the term 'federal' used, I suspect that the writer only means presidential, but it's not clear.

Anyway, thanks for the read and reply.

The 14th Amendment provides that whatever fraction of the adult male population is disqualified in any state from voting for Congress or for the Presidential electors, that state's number of seats in the House of Representatives shall be diminished by that proportion, though not down to zero. This has never actually been implemented. I would argue that the Census Bureau does have the obligation to count how many run afoul of the "felon" restrictions in many Southern states, and to allocate fewer seats to those states.
"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." was an incomplete statement of the law by the Bore v. Gush court (one of many dubious statements in that decision): although *originally* it was fine for a state to decide to choose its Presidential electors by the state legislature rather than by vote of the people, under the 14th Amendment that state would forfeit all but one of its Congressional seats.

The idea of Americans voting in European elections is even more interesting, though... With our statistical advantage, maybe we could finally instill some common sense in the old world.

Given who the Americans voted into office, and their general favoring of celebrity news as opposed to actual economic and political occurrences in their own country, you don't really have any grounds to talk about common sense.