Here is Another Column About the Voting Rights Act of 1965, But Can We Still Call It “Voting Rights” and Not “Ballot Access,” Please?

Here is a column written by Russ Wigginton, who is President of the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. BTW, I have been to the NCRM twice, and I highly recommend a visit to one and all.

However, I do wish people would keep separate the two very important issues of “Voting Rights” for people casting ballots in elections, and “Ballot Access,” which is the ability of candidates for public office to be listed on election ballots. This can easily instigate confusion in the public sphere, and both issues are sufficiently important to maintain their own monikers. There seems to be an unfortunate trend to use the phrase “Ballot Access” to describe Voting Rights. While I think this is usually done innocently, it is possible that it may be used sometimes to tacitly downplay the ballot access problems of some political parties and candidates.


Comments

Here is Another Column About the Voting Rights Act of 1965, But Can We Still Call It “Voting Rights” and Not “Ballot Access,” Please? — 6 Comments

  1. If only the headline was true about so called “voting rights” for those who should not have them, now or ever.

  2. There is overlap between the two as No Labels has recently learned.

    In Burdick v. Takushi (1992), the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to vote for the candidate of one’s choice is a “meaningful vote” and not necessarily tied to a candidate’s freedom of expression.

    This means that the public harm caused by government regulation of elections hurts voters as much as political parties.

  3. Letting the whole world vote here will reduce us all to a third world standard of living and third world levels of freedom. No thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.