The Court v. The Voters

I noted my opinion that the Constitution protects a right to vote. A book assumes it does too in various ways while listing various cases where the Supreme Court threatened voting rights. 

Justice Douglas in Baker v. Carr argues that "the right to vote is inherent in the republican form of government." A follow-up case, Reynolds v. Sims, held that “since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” 

The right to vote is a "fundamental right," which is particularly notable when equal protection is involved. Voting also involves the freedom of association, including protection of candidates whom they might vote for. One case declared that an "election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and a candidate serves as a rallying point for like-minded citizens."

Voting rights, after the 1960s, began to be given less protection, including in Richardson v. Ramirez (felons). One problematic case allowed Hawaii not to allow write-in voting. Bush v. Gore (with the dubious argument that it was partially 7-2, though all four dissented in full) and later cases are cited.

In the final chapter, some possible solutions are offered. Three general strategies:

1. Voters compromise/avoid SCOTUS
2.  Reasonable Court Reform
3.  Mobilize/form a pro-democracy movement

A compromise approach can aim for bipartisan, voting-friendly legislation:

1. Every eligible person can vote with minimal burden
2. Acknowledge concerns for potential fraud [e.g., use of paper ballots]
3. Voters should be as educated as possible
4. Elections should be based on ideas, not rules; losers should accept defeat 

Perhaps, per Rick Hasen, the ultimate goal can be a constitutional amendment broadly protecting a right to vote. We can also seek out national legislation, though the author supports a state-by-state method.

The book is overall a pretty good read, though it has some annoying mistakes, such as having Burger as an Eisenhower nominee (not as a lower court judge). It is not comprehensive (chapters are around 15 pages long), so some details in the cases are left out.

Still, it is a good way to learn about the cases and general principles. And there are some good developments, including pro-voting legislation in Kentucky, judicial elections helping in Wisconsin, and even places like Texas (pushed by litigation) easing its voting ID laws (a waiver can be signed to avoid photo IDs). Still a long way to go.

ETA: One person on a blog comment -- from someone often less troll-y than others, but has a hobbyhorse about the horrible nature of the law partially struck down in Citizens United, took a slanted approach to my summary's bullet points.

Don't do this unless you are sure the person you are engaging with is arguing in bad faith or is ignorant. And, even then, replying with a chip on your shoulder ("do you know" ... yes, I said that read a whole book on voting rights by a progressive; I'm aware of literacy tests and so forth, putting aside my other knowledge on such subject matters) is not often likely to do much. It will breed resentment and flame wars. 

For instance, I said, "should be as educated as possible." It's perfectly fine to ask me to clarify. But, assuming there is no way ("can't think of something") to do that in a positive way (voter education) is silly. 

I provided multiple examples of truly bipartisan campaigns. Again, since the person doesn't like a single law (better yet, part of it), they latch onto the one single example, badmouthing the sponsors. In this fashion, the author is not really bipartisan. 

Since it's a "law," it passed Congress. Two people you dismissive as dilettantes or whatever, aren't the only ones who supported it. 

The Supreme Court upheld most of the challenged portions the first time around, with Republican appointed justices going along in various respects. A Reagan appointee who was a Republican leader in the Arizona state legislature counts. 

And, yes, the person provided a slanted understanding of the provision struck down, including alleging it targeted minority speech. This is untrue overall, but particularly absurd when applied to anti-Hillary Clinton videos. Ah yes. Only a small segment strongly criticised her, someone who didn't even win the nomination when the film was created.  

I didn't provide that snarky part, but it is sometimes difficult to avoid doing so when a reply is so off base and (wrongly) infers you are not speaking in good faith. I followed up my two comments with long-ish replies. I put in the work. In response, I get bullshit.

Yes, it's hard for me to respect someone who does that, even if they are generally less troll-y than some of the people on the blog. I very well might respond -- insert "someone is wrong on the Internet" comic strip -- and try to be fair about it. 

And, if I insert just a bit of snark, many will latch on to it, not being able to take what they dish out.