On January 21, 2015, Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) re-introduced the proposed Constitutional amendment establishing a right to vote. It is HJR 25 and it now has 24 co-sponsors. Pocan is in his second term. His district is centered on Madison. The Democratic National Committee endorsed the bill on February 21.
The proposed amendment is very short. It says, “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 amendment were to be enacted, it would permit imprisoned felons to vote. But it would do nothing to help residents of the District of Columbia, or the U.S. overseas possessions, obtain voting representation in Congress or in the electoral college. The amendment arguably would require that independent voters be allowed to vote in any partisan primary of their choosing. Already, independent voters can vote in some or all partisan primaries in a majority of states, but they can’t vote in any partisan primaries (unless they join a party) in these fifteen jurisdictions: Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the information about Congressman Pocan’s introduction of the Resolution.
Babies voting at age ZERO ???
more and more Felon killers, traitors, terrorists, etc. voting ???
CRAZY folks voting ???
One more New Age Donkey communist machination —
result – more trash in the Judiciary committee trash can.
Good bye also to SECRET BALLOTS ???
Vote Donkey or get PURGED ???
See the nonstop Hitler and Stalin purges — esp. death camps for non-conformists.
“The amendment arguably would require that independent voters be allowed to vote in any partisan primary of their choosing.”
If it’s interpreted as applying to primaries, why would it not also mandate members of a different party be allowed to vote in a primary?
The provision is somewhat vague, and courts try to interpret constitutional provisions so they don’t conflict with other constitutional provisions. The US Supreme Court already ruled in 2000 in Cal. Dem. Party v Jones that a state cannot requires parties to put up with having members of other parties vote in their primaries. So if this proposed amendment passed, it would probably be interpreted to mean that it is satisfied as long as every voter gets to vote in one primary. So a Democratic registrant would be told his or her ability to vote in a Dem primary satisfies the provision. It is a matter of definition as to whether a “primary election” means the primary for all parties put together, or just one party’s primary.
The SCOTUS folks have been ruling that primary elections are part of the *election* process since the late 1920s — the Texas White Primary Cases.
2000 Donkey csse –
the SCOTUS morons were NOT able to detect that —
ALL voters nominate or
SOME voters (in faction gangs) nominate.
— according to PUBLIC laws in both cases.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
ONE election — NO primaries.
Would Rep. Pocan be open to adding a clause or sentence that would clear this up? For example, “Primary elections in which political parties nominate candidates may be limited to members of the respective parties.” The actual language would need quite a bit more thought.
In the worst case, the courts might interpret Rep. Pocan’s language to forbid primaries, where the word “primary” specifically means an election in which political parties nominate their candidates (I know that this definition is contested by the supporters of top two). If that were to happen, the only way to have partisan elections would be for parties to nominate by convention or privately run primary.
Maybe, although a new constitutional amendment could be interpreted to overrule past constitutional rulings.