On May 13, two members of the U.S. House introduced a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing all adult citizens the right to vote. The sponsors are Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin). The bill number hasn’t been assigned yet.
The proposed amendment reads, “Section 1. Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”
If this were enacted, ex-felons and felons in all states were gain the franchise. It is not clear whether the amendment, if enacted, could be used to strike down restrictive ballot access laws for candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in the past, “The right to vote includes the right of choice for whom to vote.” Certainly a voter in Oklahoma, a state that has prevented its voters from voting for anyone for President other than the Democratic and Republican nominees in each of the last three presidential general elections, would have a strong case against the Oklahoma ballot access laws. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about the proposed amendment.
All federal legislators should be held to the standard of co-sponsoring this amendment or proposing better.
The term “fundamental right” in the constitution would be difficult to dismiss.
LOVE having those traitors, terrorists, serial killers, child molestors, home invaders, armed robbers, etc. having the *fundamental* right to vote ???
along with age 0 kids (*legal voting age* LOOPHOLE) ???
along with folks found insane – even by juries ???
I.E. – ONE more New Age EVIL DONKEY plot (by the usual suspects) to have more ANT HILL communism ??? Duh.
It’ll die off. I’ve got no faith in Washington D.C. to uphold our inalienable rights anymore.
Richard wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has said in the past, “The right to vote includes the right of choice for whom to vote.”
Sadly, they do not always follow that doctrine.
One reform I would definitely favor: applying Baker v. Carr across State/Commonwealth lines. Smaller districts would mean at least somewhat reduced special-interest domination.
Jeff D.
It would be nice to have a US Constitutional amendment that would help get the laws in Oklahoma reformed. I doubt that it would be able to get very far though. Republicans have a tendency to fight anything that makes it easier for people to vote.
I could see this amendment having a hard time getting the 3/4th of the states voting in support of it.
#4 That problem could be solved by fractional apportionment. Simply apportion to the nearest 1/5 of a representative.
A state entitled to N + M/5 representatives would elect N representatives in all 5 elections in a redistricting decade (eg 2012 to 2020), and an extra representative in M elections.