Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [political franchise of voting] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.It is sometimes noted that the Constitution doesn't directly protect the right to vote as compared to various specific rules such as not discriminating by sex, race or age. As Bush v. Gore noted:
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.Eh. The right to vote has been determined to be a "'fundamental right" and such rights can only be abridged when done for a compelling interest and by narrowly drawn reasons, “any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." The last link is from a dissent in a voter id case, so the principle might not have been properly applied of late. But, a combination of constitutional interests (republican government, association, petition, liberty, equal protection) adds together to draw into question denying adult citizens the right to vote. This includes those no longer in jail but who once was convicted of a felony, which is discriminatory and counterproductive to promote good citizenship in practice.
Making it harder for some to vote is something done in a partisan way a lot lately. Instead of putting new, repeatedly pointless, barriers, the effort should be in the other direction. In NY, there will be come difficulties given the storm, but we manage without voter id (except for a federal rule for certain new voters) and even provide a paid window if people can show they cannot reach the polls during that time period. Not quite the ideal of an election holiday, perhaps, given the outdated day we vote. Understand, btw, the early voting idea, but still see some value in the symbolism of a certain day and place to come together for voting.
Our decentralized system and current political reality making voting rather messy, down to the FCC not being able to make basic rulings given split votes on the panel involved or a panel set up to address voting concerns pursuant to post-Bush v. Gore legislation not even being filled. There has been some effort by the Obama Justice Department to deal with some voter suppression laws, one reason why I'm voting for the guy, but at least for federal elections, there is a lot to be said for a more united system. Too much b.s. going on in Florida and Ohio along. Another problem is the use of partisans to run election systems. As with all but a few states that use independent panels to redistrict, but more so, this is lousy policy. Some local discretion will still occur.
Anyway, as noted, I'm for Obama. Sen. Gillibrand has turned out to be a good choice, which a search on this website will show was something I thought at the time she was appointed when Clinton resigned. A local assembly race led to an upset (though she's still on a third party line) given ethical issues. The guy running has done something like no one does around here -- set up a quite visible local presence, down to t-shirts and weekly BBQs. "A" and my vote for your effort. Even looking into it a bit, no real idea who to vote for local judicial races. I'll vote Green for various other safe races, including my House member, who never seems to have any local presence (our area of the district is a tack on, he mostly a "Queens" representative) to promote that cause some.
I think Obama will win and the Democrats will have about the same (maybe a few more, if things go their way) number of senators, but damn I wish it wasn't as close as it seems to be. On that front, things do seem to be leaning Obama's way in the key areas, but it really shouldn't be close at all given his asshole competition, who even many Republicans don't like. Hear less about the House, but there are some interesting ballot measures, including to liberalize marijuana laws and some key same sex marriage votes. Expect some disappointment of Prop 8 level on that front.
Overall, LGM has some good stuff on why Obama is the best choice and how to actually advance left leaning change.
[Update: As usual, I'm lucky, smooth sailing voting, no delays or anything. I just voted party line for judges, who even a search online didn't offer much in way of understanding as to best choice, writing in one as a type of protest vote. Just call me Joe Citizen.]
2 comments:
While the constitution doesn't guarantee a vote for the presidency, it apparently does take the right to vote rather seriously once it has been afforded by a state. See, e.g. Baker vs. Carr. Or even Bush vs. Gore although it's not supposed to be precidential with respect to all that equal protection mumbo jumbo.
Yes, Rick Hasen noted in his recent election law book the Bush v. Gore was never cited by the USSC except as part of an article title cite in a Roberts concurring opinion. OTOH, a few lower court opinions, including in Ohio, has found some bite there.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!