Is voting a "right" in the USA?

[Pb]

What do you think? 

[Ron]

It isn’t a natural right, like life or liberty although I think the civil right to choose your leaders is a logical extension of the right to liberty. I just don’t think it is fundamental like life and liberty.

It is certainly a civil right granted by an amendment to the constitution.

The methodology of how representives and leaders were chosen originally was left up to the individual states to define.

I voted “other” because I wasn’t sure exactly on what was meant by “right”.

[Ben]

I had to vote "other" as well. If it were an unalienable right, then anyone could vote. I believe only adult citizens of those governments that have votes should be able to vote. Certainly so for the US. In fact I lean "anti-right" and would be fine with the voting (and drinking and military) age going back to 21. I think 25 would even be better.

I suppose some country could pop up with voting as a right for anyone, citizen or not, with no age restrictions. It would be an interesting experiment to watch from afar.

[Hawkmoon]

Other.

It's a right that goes with citizenship and adulthood. That said, it's also (IMHO) a duty and a responsibility. It's tempting to suggest that it would be nice if there could be some sort of test to assess whether or not someone is responsible enough to exercise the right to vote. However, as a Second Amendment purist, I'd have to acknowledge that if there's a test for voting, then carry licenses and such would also be proper -- and, since I don't think there should be any test or license required to exercise a constitutional right, then I have to be consistent. If the gummint shouldn't impose prerequisites on the RKBA, then the gummint shouldn't impose prerequisites on the RTV (right to vote))

[zxcvbob]

The 15th and 19th Amendments say explicitly that voting is a right.  Whether it should be might be debatable.

[TommyGunn]

There is no right, per se, to vote.  The Constitution provides that, so long as voting is the method chosen to decide ascension to political office, no person may be denied the vote due to sex, religion, race,  and certain other innate qualities.

We could decide via flip of the coin.   We won't, of course (it might improve the quality of our reps) but in theory,  it can hapoen.

[Ben]

If the gummint shouldn't impose prerequisites on the RKBA, then the gummint shouldn't impose prerequisites on the RTV (right to vote))

Then we have to define what kind of right that voting is. I think I understand where you're coming from, but if we treat voting like the 2nd, then we should be against any voter ID laws, just like constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

[Perd Hapley]

I had to vote "other" as well. If it were an unalienable right, then anyone could vote. I believe only adult citizens of those governments that have votes should be able to vote. Certainly so for the US. In fact I lean "anti-right" and would be fine with the voting (and drinking and military) age going back to 21. I think 25 would even be better.

I suppose some country could pop up with voting as a right for anyone, citizen or not, with no age restrictions. It would be an interesting experiment to watch from afar.

That's not how unalienable works. You have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinefs [sic]; but that doesn't mean that a 5-year old can go to the Supreme Court, when his parents send him to his room. It doesn't mean you can murder someone, be sentenced to imprisonment or death, and then claim a right to life and liberty. I'm not sure how people have handled these limits theoretically, but it seems to be the case that parents are basically entrusted with the unalienable rights of their children. Also, and forgive me if I use the wrong word here, but felons basically waive many of their rights. You want to carry a gun? Fine, but if you also decide to murder people with it, you've decided to give up most (or all) of your rights. Your decision; not ours.

Then we have to define what kind of right that voting is. I think I understand where you're coming from, but if we treat voting like the 2nd, then we should be against any voter ID laws, just like constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

Sorry to pick on you, but there's a reason why we talk about "civil rights." Some rights, like the right to defend yourself, are common to all humans, everywhere. Civil rights, like voting, you only have within your own society. I can't go to Jamaica on election day, and join in the voting, and come back home. I should be allowed to have a gun there, however. I would probably not be allowed to under their current law (whatever that is), but I should be.


As to the OP's question, I believe the Constitution has always included Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees a Republican form of government to each state. That doesn't mean everyone gets the right to vote, but it does mean the state governments have to allow for representative government. "Republicanism" was seen as a radically egalitarian idea, in the old days.

[Hawkmoon]

Then we have to define what kind of right that voting is. I think I understand where you're coming from, but if we treat voting like the 2nd, then we should be against any voter ID laws, just like constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

Quite the contrary, I think a right to vote rather strongly implies the necessity of voter ID laws.

The RKBA doesn't require any ID, it's a right guaranteed to "the people." That's all of us, and any of us.

Voting, however, seems to be linked to citizenship. Then, too, there's the issue of "One man, one vote" (unless, of course, you live in Chicago, where the rule is "Vote early, vote often"). If **I** have a right to vote, then to me it is important that when "I" vote, the person casting my vote is actually me. Unless the poll workers are personally acquainted with every single voter in their jurisdiction, there is no way to ensure that other than requiring voter ID.

Requiring voter ID isn't imposing any prerequisite criteria on the voters. You don't have to pass a test, and you don't have to pay money to obtain a license before you're allowed to vote. You're simply asked to demonstrate that you are you. I'll be 75 years old next week, and I've been registered to vote since the date when I became eligible. My recollection of early years of voting are necessarily dim and fuzzy, but I honestly can't recall any election at which I was allowed to vote without showing my driver's license. I don't see this as a problem, or an imposition. To me it's a feature, not a bug.

[HeroHog]

It's a "right" that can be removed for a few reasons like Felony charges and, I believe, a BCD and possibly more. (yes I know they do this against the 2A but I believe that is wrong in many cases)

"in the USA?" NO, for LAWFUL CITIZENS, YES.

[Ben]

Sorry to pick on you, but there's a reason why we talk about "civil rights." Some rights, like the right to defend yourself, are common to all humans, everywhere. Civil rights, like voting, you only have within your own society. I can't go to Jamaica on election day, and join in the voting, and come back home. I should be allowed to have a gun there, however. I would probably not be allowed to under their current law (whatever that is), but I should be.

This is why I'm asking if we should equate voting with the 2nd. I was getting the impression that the thread was suggesting they were somewhat equal, but I don't agree with that.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I voted other.

I'm going with it is the right (and responsibility) for every citizen and I would bet the founding fathers considered it to be something like that as they came up with and waged a whole war partially on the concept of taxation without representation.

In other words, if the government can make you pay taxes then you have the right to have a say in it.

[Perd Hapley]

I voted other.

I'm going with it is the right (and responsibility) for every citizen and I would bet the founding fathers considered it to be something like that as they came up with and waged a whole war partially on the concept of taxation without representation.

In other words, if the government can make you pay taxes then you have the right to have a say in it.

Then you should have voted yes.

I thought non-citizens were required to pay the same taxes as the rest of us, so I'm having some trouble with your reasoning.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Then you should have voted yes.

I thought non-citizens were required to pay the same taxes as the rest of us, so I'm having some trouble with your reasoning.

The founding fathers had poll taxes and property taxes as well as some taxes on stuff like whisky (and that didn't go over well) and the people white men who were paying those taxes were the only ones eligible to vote. I doubt they'd have been too keen on much of the modern tax laws or too keen on the idea of someone who didn't pay taxes voting.

[Perd Hapley]

The founding fathers had poll taxes and property taxes as well as some taxes on stuff like whisky (and that didn't go over well) and the people white men who were paying those taxes were the only ones eligible to vote. I doubt they'd have been too keen on much of the modern tax laws or too keen on the idea of someone who didn't pay taxes voting.

I'm aware there were still property requirements in some states, and that there were taxes, but I'm not sure you're right about poll taxes. Those were a feature of the Jim Crow era, though I suppose they may have been around earlier.

Are you saying the Founders wanted legal resident non-citizens to vote, or would they not want them to pay taxes? Right now, green card holders are not (officially) represented.

[dm1333]

They're doing their part. Are you? Join the Mobile Infantry and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship.

   

[BlueStarLizzard]

I've been reading more.

Apparently the Constitution was so fuzzy on voting rights, that it mostly left it up to the States to determine the hows and who's. At the time of the Revolution, many American's thought that the Constitution would expand voting rights beyond property holders.

https://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

The Revolutionary War stimulated a desire for reform. Advocates of change said that the conflict was about liberty and representation. They believed in a voting system that embodied those aims for more people. Debates were most intense between 1776 and the adoption of the federal Constitution. The range of disputes was too vast and too complex to cover in depth in this space. The chief concerns, however, focused on extending voting rights to veterans, the implications of a broader electorate, and the validity of property requirements. Property requirements seemed to attract the most attention. They came under attack almost as soon as the Revolution began.

Benjamin Franklin lampooned them when he wrote:

Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?

Property restrictions gradually disappeared in the nineteenth century. Tax-paying requirements replaced property ownership, though they too waned after the 1820s. By the 1850s, most economic barriers to voting had disappeared.
Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements.

So I guess it's a toss up. Some Founding Fathers wanted it to be a right. Others wanted it to be limited and probably a lot of them just didn't want to touch the subject with a twenty foot pole.

Either way, to address a point I made that fistful isn't grokking, I'm pretty sure none of them considered green cards and some paperwork laden naturalization ordeal when it came time to determine who could and couldn't vote. At the time, as far as they were concerned, if you were a 21+ year old white man with property, you could vote, regardless of where the hell you came from. Since, presumably, those were the same guys paying the majority of any taxes collected I think that pretty much sums up voting rights linked to taxation and why the property requirement was such a hot topic issue.

[Perd Hapley]

The constitution (as ratified) intentionally avoided dictating to the states who would be allowed to vote in state-level elections. However, it did specify that U.S. representatives would be elected by those eligible to vote for the "most numerous Branch of the State Legislature," and that the Senators would be chosen by the state legislatures. The only suffrage question the constitution was really "fuzzy" about was in regard to how presidential electors would be chosen.