• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's all the fuss about so-called "Voter Supression"?

"The right of the citizens of the United States to vote" is a de jure and a de facto right. Period. There is absolutely nothing to debate there.

Any abridging of the right to vote is unconstitutional.

""The right of the citizens of the United States to vote" is a de jure and a de facto right. Period. There is absolutely nothing to debate there."

The ability of an American citizen to vote, as proscribed by law, IS a de jure right.

The ability of an American administration to establish regulations and processes which have the effect of reducing the ability of an American citizen to actually be able to vote, is also a de jure reality.

That an American administration can establish regulations and processes which have the effect of reducing the ability of an American citizen to actually be able to vote is also a de facto reality.

That many people believe that what they think the law is and what the law actually is are the same thing is also a de facto reality.

You are, of course, aware that there are approximately 24,000,000 American citizens (that's close on 7.25% of the total population and close on 10.84% of the American population over the age of 18) who are over the age of 18 who DO NOT have "the right to vote", aren't you?

"Any abridging of the right to vote is unconstitutional."

I'll believe that when you can cite me the section of the Constitution of the United States of America that states

Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to vote in an election of members of the United States of America House of Representatives, the United States of America Senate, or of any legislative assembly of the state wherein they reside and to be qualified for membership therein.​

or the equivalent.

The "right to vote" not being a right placed under the jurisdiction of the federal government, it is a "right" that is solely within the jurisdiction of the several state government and there is nothing prohibiting any state from including in its list of qualifications required to be met in order to become eligible to vote a condition such as

must have had at least 60 of their immediately preceding fore-bearers qualified to vote in this state;​
or​
must be at least 6'3" tall​
or​
must have paid a minimum of $1,000 in state income tax in each of the preceding 10 years.​
I will agree that most people think that Americans have a "right to vote" and most people think that having the "right to vote" is something that is a condition precedent to having a "free, fair, open, and honest election in a truly democratic society", but the fact remains that, AT LAW, Americans do NOT have the "right to vote".
 
Yes, it would. Voter suppression is measures designed to reduce voting. That could mean raising the voting age, reducing voting hours and locations, increasing requirements on voting designed to reduce the number of voters, and other measures. You can try to defend any measure, but it's voter suppression. Suppression refers to the intent being to prevent voting, and disingenuous claims of other purposes don't make them legitimate.

If you think that I'm "defending" the practice of rampant gerrymandering and making it as difficult as possible for the people who are not likely to vote for "Our Guys" to actually be able to cast their ballots, you are sadly mistaken.

My point is that one cannot suppress a "right" that simply does not exist AS A RIGHT (regardless of how large a proportion of the population think that it does).

What those who favour rampant gerrymandering and making it as difficult as possible for the people who are not likely to vote for "Our Guys" are doing is merely "voter redefinition" and "electoral security". If you don't believe me, ask them.
 
And then TU split hairs to 1 angstrom in width.

Ah yes, but of such legally split hairs are large legal fees built.

The point is NOT whether everyone should have the "right to vote" and approximately 10.84% of the adult American (citizen) population do NOT have the "right to vote", but whether the belief that Americans have a CONSTITUTIONAL "right to vote" - and they don't.
 
The Constitution sure spends a lot of time talking about imaginary rights.

Fifteenth Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Twenty-sixth Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen that I made specific reference to those three amendments and what they actually mean.

Now please show me the part of the American constitution which says

Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to vote in an election of members of the United States of America House of Representatives, the United States of America Senate, or of any legislative assembly of the state wherein they reside and to be qualified for membership therein.​

or the equivalent.
 
If you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen that I made specific reference to those three amendments and what they actually mean.

Now please show me the part of the American constitution which says

Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to vote in an election of members of the United States of America House of Representatives, the United States of America Senate, or of any legislative assembly of the state wherein they reside and to be qualified for membership therein.​

or the equivalent.

This is similar to an older Constitutional reading that claimed that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality, even though it is.

U.S. citizens have been enjoying the right to vote for quite some time now, just as the Supreme Court has been deciding Constitutional cases and controversies for even longer, despite nitpicking arguments from an earlier century.
 
Aside from the Constitutionally required decennial census/redistricting, which has been at the heart of many outrageous acts of gerrymandering, deliberately disenfranchising minorities for many decades, the recent rush of Republican voter suppression (a real thing) laws are happening at the state level, thanks to the 10th amendment.

Wrong. The 15th and 19th amendments, granted the right to vote to African Americans and women, respectively. The two classes of citizens were previously not permitted to vote.

There’s a distinct difference from denying someone a right that they didn’t have before, and granting someone a right.

And the 26th amendment was enacted simply to lower the federal age requirement to vote. The only mechanism to accomplish that.

Here you go again with your nonsensical, misinterpretation of our Constitution.

Our Constitution is a living document, meaning that it was deliberately written to allow for the many changes our forefathers were wise enough to foresee.

Our legal system does not operate under a system of “if a thing isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is permissible”.

That is why we have SCOTUS. Interpreting law, according to our Constitution, and rendering decisions is the primary purpose of the high court.


Before opining on another’s country’s voting system, especially from an obviously biased position, get your facts straight.

Five will get you ten that I have had more experience in both writing and interpreting legislation than you have.

If you listen to the American "Strict Interpretation Constitutionalists" you will learn that they believe that the US constitution did NOT GRANT any rights at all, but merely recognized the existence of certain rights (which were "inherent").

Thus the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments did not GRANT anyone a "right" but merely recognized that they had had them all along but that they had been precluded from exercising those "rights" by the passage of "unconstitutional legislation".

They will also tell you that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has no business "interpreting" anything since it was given no such statutory power by the Constitution of the United States of America.

BTW, the American legal system DOES operate according to "the British model" (which is "Unless a thing is specifically prohibited, it is allowed.) rather than "the German model" (which is "Unless a thing is specifically allowed, it is prohibited.").
 
Aside from you point, "voter suppression" legislation is left-wing code for "please don't protect the non-voters from repeated left wing harassment" legislation. The left would luv to run elections like publisher's clearing house, mass mailings of untracked and unsolicited ballots with a chance to win cell phones or a free vacation to Cuba or even a million bucks from the DNC.
Indeed, their whole idea of a republic's democracy is to harass, bribe or strong-arm the indifferent, no information non voters to vote - to pepper them with ballots, real or Xeroxed, so their minions can go door to door offering to "help" fill out the ditto machined ballots, or simply take the blanks off the hands of the apathetic for producing those "extra votes".

So to not support this nonsense is called "voter suppression"...LOL....

Yes, I am quite sure that you are totally in favour of gerrymandering and reducing the opportunities of the people who are not likely to vote for "Our Guys" to the minimum PROVIDED that it is "Our Guys" who are controlling the gerrymandering and reductions in order to ensure that "Our Guys" remain in power regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
 
This is similar to an older Constitutional reading that claimed that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality, even though it is.

U.S. citizens have been enjoying the right to vote for quite some time now, just as the Supreme Court has been deciding Constitutional cases and controversies for even longer, despite nitpicking arguments from an earlier century.

If you had said "Most adult U.S. citizens have been enjoying the privilege of voting for quite some time now (to the point where they think of it as a right)..." I wouldn't have any qualms with your post at all.
 
Oh, it is a right. Just as the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality.

At some point, the people agree on an interpretation and move forward.

They agreed about our right to vote long ago, so long ago that they amended that agreed-upon right three times to expand it.
 
Oh, it is a right. Just as the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality.

At some point, the people agree on an interpretation and move forward.

They agreed about our right to vote long ago, so long ago that they amended that agreed-upon right three times to expand it.

Of course people "agreed about our right to vote long ago" and many people THINK OF it as a "right" (despite the fact that about 10% of the American population that is over the age of 18 and are also American citizens do NOT have the "right" to vote), my point is that they didn't pass any legislation to "enshrine" that right into law. That means that that "right" IS subject to the vagaries of whatever legislation does actually exist.

Let me postulate an extremely simple example:

In "Electoral Area A" there are 100,000 eligible voters. There are 10 "voting sub-divisions" to "Electoral Area A" each containing 10,000 eligible voters. In 5 of those "voting subdivisions ("Set 1"), 60% of the eligible voters are likely to vote for the Blattodea Party and 40% are likely to vote for the Cimicosis Party. in the other 5 ("Set 2")the proportions are that 70% are likely to vote for the Cimicosis Party and 30% are likely to vote for the Blattodea Party. A polling place has the capacity of handling 50 persons per hour and is open for 10 hours (for a total of 500 persons).​
The Blattodea Party has control over the conduct of the elections in "Electoral Area A" and established 50 polling places each "voting sub-division of "Set 1" and 1 polling place in each "voting sub-division of "Set 2".​
That means that the total potential capacity of the polling places for "Set 1" is 125,000 and the total potential capacity of the polling places for "Set 2" is 2,500.​
Every potential voter has the option of arriving at their appointed polling place the moment that it opens so as to be sure to be able to cast a ballot.​

If a potential voter exercises their choice NOT to arrive at their appointed polling place the moment that it opens so as to be sure to be able to cast a ballot, how has the Blattodea Party "suppressed" any votes when it was the voter's own choice that resulted in them not being able to cast a ballot?

[The above legal opinion, has been provided by the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump {BBHN}" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump {BBHN} says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"TheFirst Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
Last edited:
Five will get you ten that I have had more experience in both writing and interpreting legislation than you have.
Sure doesn’t reflect in your posts.
If you listen to the American "Strict Interpretation Constitutionalists" you will learn that they believe that the US constitution did NOT GRANT any rights at all, but merely recognized the existence of certain rights (which were "inherent").
I couldn’t care less what strict constitutionalists think or say, because that is not what the founding fathers intended. If they did, there’d be no reason for SCOTUS to exist.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”

No reason to bother with the rest of your opinions.
Thus the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments did not GRANT anyone a "right" but merely recognized that they had had them all along but that they had been precluded from exercising those "rights" by the passage of "unconstitutional legislation".

They will also tell you that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has no business "interpreting" anything since it was given no such statutory power by the Constitution of the United States of America.

BTW, the American legal system DOES operate according to "the British model" (which is "Unless a thing is specifically prohibited, it is allowed.) rather than "the German model" (which is "Unless a thing is specifically allowed, it is prohibited.").
 
Sure doesn’t reflect in your posts.

I couldn’t care less what strict constitutionalists think or say, because that is not what the founding fathers intended. If they did, there’d be no reason for SCOTUS to exist.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”

No reason to bother with the rest of your opinions.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread”.

- Anatole France
 
In my area in California, there is usually no wait, and at most a few minutes, if you go in person.
I don’t wait at all. I fill out my ballot and drop it in my mailbox.
 
Conservative groups are writing GOP voter suppression bills — and spending millions to pass them


Koch,Heritage and ALEC legislation with over 250 restrictions.
 
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/al...te-special-interests-state-legislatures#Voter

ALEC is directly tied to the emerging trend among state legislatures to consider voter ID laws.

Using false allegations of “voter fraud,” right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters — including the elderly and the poor — who are unlikely to have drivers’ licenses or other forms of photo ID.

By suppressing the vote of such groups, ALEC’s model “Voter ID Act” grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the right to vote.

In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to participate in the political process.

Their Public Safety and Elections taskforce is co-chaired by Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous pro-corporate election groups, and promotes model legislation that would devastate campaign finance reform and allow for greater corporate influence in elections.

 
BEGIN ORGANIZING YOUR VOTING DAY PACKETS = Democracy NOW

Voters must assume CONSERVATIVES may purge YOU from the voting rolls. Any way possible

VOTE VOTE VOTE

Voters ORGANIZE A VOTING DAY PACKET which should contain:

--- a birth certificate

--- drivers license or state ID card

--- proof of voter registration etc etc etc.

--- Keep it close by as voting opportunities will be ongoing. Let’s get on with it. WE voters have a mess to clean up.

Once again….Voters BEGIN ORGANIZING YOUR VOTING DAY PACKET. Keep it close by ALWAYS.

CONSERVATIVES will never give up squashing democracy and YOUR right to vote.

Tell Congress: Restore the Voting Rights Act now.
 
Ah yes, but of such legally split hairs are large legal fees built.

The point is NOT whether everyone should have the "right to vote" and approximately 10.84% of the adult American (citizen) population do NOT have the "right to vote", but whether the belief that Americans have a CONSTITUTIONAL "right to vote" - and they don't.

Oh, okay.

**** this country, then.
 
I don’t see what all the fuss in the US about that so-called “voter suppression” is.

Voting in the US is governed by the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically Article 1 Section 4

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

True, there are three other sections the 15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.​
It's like this. One of the southern states mandates you get the official photo id card at the Department of Motor Vehicals. THey then shut down the DMV in counties that were predominately black, so people who didn't have photo id's in that area would have to travel to get it. There is no public transportation in those areas. So, the people who need to get the photo id's can't get the photo id's, because the state put a hurdle that is extremely high for them to get it. That elminates their right to vote.
 
Oh, okay.

**** this country, then.

Indeed. It's a wonder conservatives seem to demand we have any loyalty to the country or consider it a legitimate form of government if it comes with the demand that we don't want to have a representative government or government by our will.

The modern conservative argument seems to be that they deserve the right of minority rule whenever they see fit.

And also the right to shoot anyone they deem out of compliance with the law or if you get on their bad side and they need to (defend themselves and their property).

And also get upset when the disaffected folks start rioting.

Oh, and when they don't win an election where they got many less votes they'll complain to no end about how unfair it was and try to throw the entire democratic system under the bus.
 
It's like this. One of the southern states mandates you get the official photo id card at the Department of Motor Vehicals. THey then shut down the DMV in counties that were predominately black, so people who didn't have photo id's in that area would have to travel to get it. There is no public transportation in those areas. So, the people who need to get the photo id's can't get the photo id's, because the state put a hurdle that is extremely high for them to get it. That elminates their right to vote.
That's one scenario. In simpler, clearer terms, Democratic voters have id's at a much lower percent than Republican voters, by millions of people, and so Republicans use that to exclude Democratic voters, and then they say 'to prevent voter fraud' to hide their motive to the gullible.
 
The sarcasm consisted solely of the opening. The remainder of the post was solid law.

However, I can see that you are beginning to grasp the difference between a "right" and a "cultural expectation".

The wording of the paragraph on "Democratic rights" in the OP is taken from the constitution of a country where the citizenry believe that their "cultural expectation" that they would be able to vote was an "essential freedom in a free and democratic society" is so strong that they made it a "constitutional right" EVEN THOUGH there was no suspicion that it was under threat.

The US is content to let the citizenry's ability to vote remain a "cultural expectation" WITHOUT making it a "constitutional right". That leads to the conclusion that they do NOT believe that the ability to vote is an "essential freedom in a free and democratic society" regardless of evidence that it is under threat.

Beginning? Nothing in my position has changed. You will find threads from me months ago explaining the issue.

You, however, do not appear to be beginning to grasp that while not a legal/constitutional right, it's more than a 'cultural preference', as I explained, and is central to our democratic values and an important moral issue. A cultural preference is who plays the half-time show, this is a lot more than that. But you are obsessed trying to minimize it, not simply point out the constitutional issue.
 
Suppression has taken on a whole new meaning in liberal speak.

It means doing whatever you can to make sure fewer people can vote. It's the new GOP way of doing things.
 
Back
Top Bottom