Right to Vote

Right to Vote
Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Zach Sheinberg

Former President Harry S Truman once said, “It's not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It's the hand that casts the ballot.” When was the last time that you, as a voter, felt that you held the destiny of America? That your vote really affected anything at all? Well, if you voted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida…

Truman believed that ultimately, political power rested with the people, not with the government. Theoretically, the notion is true. Because the government itself is an instrumentality artificially created by the people and through voting, the people can, theoretically, recreate or even uncreate it. Unfortunately, in practice, the only permissible change is one to different officeholders, who may prove no better.

Conceptually, the power of the vote is vast. Although rarely can we understand just how vast because one vote seems immaterial amidst so many others. The collective vote is almost omnipotent, but each individual vote, because of their wide dispersion, much less so. But each year, races do come down to the hundreds of votes. The 2000 Presidential Election is just the grandest example.

History of Voting

The United States Constitution, in its original form, does not address the right to vote. The individual States conferred, or denied, the right to vote through their State Constitutions. Below are two examples.

New Jersey

Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (since revised) set forth the following with respect to voting.

“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for, twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be, entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.

Georgia

Article VI of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 (since revised) states the following.

“The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected;… and they shall be of the Protestant on, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.

In New Jersey, voting restrictions included age, wealth and state residency. In Georgia, voting restrictions included age, wealth, state and county residency and religion. These and other extralegal tactics were used to limit the universe of voters essentially to landed, white men.

Why the limitations? Probably for two reasons.

First, those who drafted the State Constitutions, as well as the U. S. Constitution, were landed, white men. They shared similar interests with other landed, white men. These men felt that they should take responsibility for governing because they were the educated, elite and wealthy. They had, or so they felt, greater interests than the common man in the business of government. And second, landed, white men did not trust the masses to vote intelligently. They felt that the uneducated masses would not know how to vote in their own best interests.

The first reason reeks of self-interest. Although we certainly do want highly intelligent people serving in government, those intelligent public servants need not be wealthy or elite. But in the 18th Century, those in power felt otherwise at least in part because generally, only the wealthy were educated.

The second reason begs an interesting question. Should only those citizens who are informed about the issues and candidates be permitted to vote? Certainly, the idea seems reasonable. Although instituting a regime where an impartial body must verify the veracity of knowledge of each citizen probably is unworkable.

Other than taking a written civics exam, how else could society determine which of its citizens are educated enough to vote for public office? And who would write such an exam? A government entity? An impartial body? The College Board (which administers the SAT)? And what questions would the test include? If a voter knows everything about healthcare, and bases her vote on that, but knows nothing about foreign policy, would she qualify to vote? In the words of the sagacious Jeffrey Lebowski, there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous.”

The Vote Evolves

Fifteenth Amendment

The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, marked the Federal Government’s first intervention into the sphere of voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment sets forth, “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.”

Following ratification, some states enacted poll taxes and literacy exams and employed various other tactics to deny the franchise to African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, did away with poll taxes.

Nineteenth Amendment

Women obtained the right to vote upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 18, 1920. The Amendment states, “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.”

Twenty-Fourth Amendment

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” It is interesting to note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment applies only to federal elections.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment

In response to the Vietnam War draft that conscripted eighteen year olds into military service, the United States ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment on July 1, 1971, which reduced the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The Amendment states, “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.”

Americans with Disabilities Act

In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, which required that polling places be accessible to citizens with disabilities.

Other Groups

In various ways, states tended to deny Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos the vote in ways similar to African Americans. Their ability to vote was spotty until citizenship laws governing the citizenship of members of these groups changed and voting restrictions, like the literacy requirement, were outlawed.

Who Should Get to Vote?

Let’s start with the presumption that everyone should get to vote. Then we can peel off certain groups. The federal government has already peeled of citizens under the age of 18. Why? The age of eighteen is arbitrary. I remember when I was in middle school, my history teacher would grill my class every week on current events. I knew Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense (and remembered his name because as a seventh grader, I found it particularly amusing). I assure you that in 1991, my seventh grade class was better informed than many adults. Certainly, children who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should not be permitted to vote. But all others? Why not?

States treat the right to vote of convicted felons differently. Some deny the franchise to convicted felons while incarcerated, others through post-incarceration parole and yet others forever. Why? Because convicted felons have violated their contract with society to adhere to the law. This is society’s way of punishing convicted felons. That and sending them to up to Rikers, probably the less appealing of the two.

States also have different standards for denying the vote to the mentally insane. In 2007, the American Bar Association recommended withholding the vote from only those who cannot indicate, with or without assistance, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.” Why? Maybe for the same reason as denying the vote to a newborn baby. No capacity to reason. Although another justification could be avoidance of coercion. No independent judgment. But in this case, is a mentally insane person any different than your friend who knows nothing about politics, asks you how to vote and then votes that way? He is certainly not exercising independent judgment.

Who else should we peel off? The guy who sits next to you at work who doesn’t even know who’s running for President? Or the New York City cab driver you rode with yesterday who did not know where Times Square was? Or anyone who plans to vote for the other guy (or gal)?

While there might not exist an equitable way to determine who is informed and who is not informed, I still think that our democracy would benefit from a well-informed electorate. It does concern me that people vote who do not understand the true ramifications of their vote. Many do understand. But many do not. Although it is also important to note that even if a voter does understand precisely the ramifications of his vote at the present time, the preferred candidate might change positions or act totally contrary to the words and actions upon which the voter based his vote.

I know what you are thinking. “Of course only informed people should have the right to vote. Because I am an informed person!” Really, are you?

12 Questions

See how many of the following twelve questions you can answer (see answers below). I actually had to double-check the answer to #6.

1. Name the Democratic and Republican nominees for President.

2. Name the Governor of your State.

3. Who must approve a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court?

4. What President established Social Security?

5. What three countries made up George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil?

6. Allegedly, nine world nations have nuclear weapons. Name five of them.

7. Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?

8. With what governmental body must all federal taxation laws originate?

9. What is the Laffer Curve?

10. Who is second in the line of Presidential Succession (after the Vice President)?

11. What does NAFTA stand for?

12. Into what independent nation did Russia recently move Russian troops?

Still think only well-informed citizens should vote?

Who Should Vote?

I am confident that the majority of eligible American voters could not answer even half of the questions above correctly. But does that mean that we should not permit them to vote. If only the truly informed could vote, how many of us would actually cast a ballot. I assure you that I would not.

Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I can assure you that the average voter does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or the purported benefits of a flat tax. Or the arguments for and against ethanol subsidies. Or the non-monetary benefits of an entire citizenry that has heath insurance. Or what caused the melt down on Wall Street and how to fix it (if you know that, please call Hank Paulson immediately).

Which is not to say that the voter is uninformed. Policy in the twenty-first century is more complicated than policy in the eighteenth century. To understand every nuance of every issue would be a full-time job. Most elected officials do not know all the answers either. Which is why they have a staff and why lobbyists prosper.

Unfortunately, there is no simple or equitable way to purge the ranks of the voting public of those who are underinformed or uninformed. Primarily because we cannot precisely define a precise standard of “informed.” Even if you answered all ten questions above correctly, don’t pat yourself on the back so quickly. You are not necessarily informed.

How Do Voters Decide How to Vote?

If every American voter knew every little detail of every policy issue and understood precisely the implications of the policy positions of each candidate, would that change how the voter votes? Do voters even vote based on policy?

Voters decide for whom to cast their ballot for a wide variety of reasons. There may be one issue (eg. abortion) that trumps all others. Or across all issues, one candidate is more in line with the beliefs of the voter. Or one candidate exudes better character. Or is more trustworthy. Or is a better leader. Or is a better speaker. Or shares the same values as the voter.

There are myriad reasons why a voter votes for one candidate over another. Some reasons are good (eg. I like Obama’s plan for universal health care). Others are bad (eg. Obama is a Muslim).

Ask yourself the following question. Because while I suspect you have strong reasons for voting for whichever candidate you intend to vote for (to the extent you have already decided), you may not precisely understand why.

Why am I voting for Obama? Or McCain? Make a list of reasons.

Once you have the list, I ask that you check to make sure that those reasons, if fact based (eg. policy positions, personal facts about the candidate) are accurate. Make sure you have all the facts, because with all the emails flying around, misleading commercials and rumors, it is often hard to parse truth from the falsity.

And once you have the facts, go vote! Unless you are going to vote for the other guy… Just kidding.

Some Current Events of Note

Presidential Election Update

Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are no longer swing states. Senator Obama leads by a solid margin in each of the four. Obama is now leading by at least 5% in each of New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. Of the seven states that now look like swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida), Obama leads in all but West Virginia (he trails by 1.5%) and Indiana (he trails by 3.8%).

Canadian Elections

Congratulations to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for securing enough seats in Parliament, although not a majority, to hold onto his post as PM, at least for a little while longer.

They Never Learn

Do you remember former Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst a scandal of sending sexually charged instant messages to male House pages? Since the Republican Party could not replace his name on the 2006 ballot, his Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, won the election (although by only about 4,500 votes) in a reliably Republican District. I guess Mahoney did not learn that a sex scandal is not good for one’s reelection prospects. Recent reports indicate that Mahoney was having an affair with one of his Congressional staffers, who found out that she was not the only one, and threatened to sue the Congressman. Mahoney then agreed to pay her over $100,000 to avoid a lawsuit. Extramarital affair. Staffer. Payoff. Representative Mahoney better call the movers. And given the sunny prospects for Democrats at the polls this year, Mahoney’s own Democratic will not bother to come to his rescue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already asked for a House Ethics investigation. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

------------------------------
Answers

1. Democrat: Senator Barack Obama; Republican: Senator John McCain;
2. Depends on state. See http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.42b929b1a5b9e4eac3363d10501010a0/?vgnextoid=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov;
3. United States Senate;
4. Franklin Roosevelt;
5. Iraq, Iran and North Korea;
6. United States, France, Russia, China, Great Britain, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel;
7. Gordon Brown;
8. House of Representatives;
9. A graph showing that sometimes increasing tax rates can lower total tax receipts;
10. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
11. North American Free Trade Agreement;
12. Georgia.

------------------------------
Sources

CNN.com: www.cnn.com
US Constitution Online: www.usconstitution.net
OpenElections: www.openelections.org
Drug Policy Alliance Network: www.drugpolicy.org
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com