Because of problems with our recent elections, proposals and efforts to improve the integrity of our elections are proliferating. Shockingly for many Americans, one basis of the 2000 decision that put President George W. Bush in office was Chief Justice Rehnquist's observation that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote. The answer is not federalization of elections, new laws, a better FEC, principled secretaries of state, or federal standards. Rather, I propose a Free and Fair Elections amendment to the Constitution. My proposed amendment reads thus:
A well regulated election, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to an audited, voter-verified, certified paper record of the vote, shall not be infringed.
This amendment is important for several reasons. First, the wording offers a simple, clear, direct, and unambiguous requirement guiding elections and any counting machines or other technology used to count and assemble votes. The amendment justifies itself, and is structured similarly to the Second Amendment on purpose; the security of a free nation is at stake. Liberal principle requires such an amendment in the face of the current technological changes. Who will vote against the free and fair elections amendment? No one who values democracy. An accurate, verifiable count of votes is fundamental to democracy; there's no room to equivocate. To oppose this amendment is to subvert the will of the people. The right of citizens to know who actually won, and confidence in the accurate counting of votes is very difficult to oppose. This amendment puts liberal principle squarely back into the center of our political debate.
Second, this amendment has widespread ramifications. It would affect the design and implementation of voting machines and electoral processes in every federal, state, and local election. It would thwart those who want to concentrate power in an elite group at the top of the right-wing chart, and move power back into the hands of the people. It would ensure that local officials and states live up to consistent Constitutional standards, and it would prevent end runs by politically-chosen partisan boards, legislatures or Secretaries of State.
Third, the Free and Fair Elections Amendment focuses the attention of the electorate--and the debate in the body politic--on the real issue: the integrity of every vote. Constitutional amendments usually take a long time to pass. Congress votes on it, and three-fourths of the states have to ratify it. This process can take a decade, long enough to provoke debate throughout the country on the integrity of the voting and elections system. This can only be a good thing for democracy and liberal principle.
Fourth, it is nonpartisan. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Independents all have a stake in the proper counting of votes. So do progressives, moderates, and conservatives. The very legitimacy of government depends on accurate vote counting. Public and private party funding, recognition of status as major parties, and a clear picture of where the parties actually stand in the body politic also depend on accurate vote counting. The only logical reason to oppose such an amendment is because your own power position relies on the corruption of the system. Diebold may not support it because, as some believe, the company has built in a method for adjusting elections, or because it is unprofitable to incur the cost of securing their systems to the standards which the amendment would require. Either way, their opposition is based on their power interest. Not even Diebold can legitimately claim that the lack of such security and verifiability is in the interest of democracy.
The Free and Fair Elections Amendment, as I have proposed it, can and should be taken up in every state and in the Congress. It is an example of a political move that should appeal to all three modalities of American liberalism.
Check out my forthcoming book Call to Liberty: Bridging the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives. I regularly blog at http://www.calltoliberty.net. This post was cross-posted there.