This is one of my irregular political posts. It has to do with how to get out of this morass of electoral nonsense. It is not a perfect solution, because the Constitution of the United States of America sort of prohibits some of my prescription. But it does it does not prohibit all of it.
I am very hesitant to propose amendments to the Constitution. First of all, they almost always fail. Second of all, messing with it sometimes has grave unanticipated results. Third, it still is just about the most perfect document ever written insofar as forming a government goes.
With that said, there are some things that are really wrong with our electoral system, from dogcatcher to President of the United States. This is just a first stab at pointing out some of the difficulties and suggesting improvements.
The most fundamental problem, as far as I can see, is making it as easy as possible for legal voters to exercise that right. And it IS a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege for those who have the mental, physical, and financial wherewithal to do so. It is at one's own cost. Voting is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Those are very different things.
Article One, Section 4 of the Constitution is explicit:
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 chusing [sic] Senators.
This is the key to my argument.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress, with the approval of the President, to enact laws that apply to every state to require standard, national requirements for those who register to vote and for those who vote. Here is my Rx for the registration and actually showing up to vote. My words are not legalese, but you know what I mean. Here is a first draft.
No State or District may disallow any person that is a legal Citizen of the United States from registering to vote in elections that he or she may be qualified by residence and age. Residence is defined as affirming that one's vote is from a region wherein the voter lives, or intends to live (and has a residence no shorter than the day of voter registration), as a legal resident, paying taxes, being on the voter role, and otherwise not disallowed to vote.
Any resident has the presumption of truth when he or she registers, or votes, in her or his chosen district. No photographic identification can ever be demanded for any citizen to register to vote, or to vote. The presumption of eligibility is with the voter. Only when a jurisdiction can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a voter is not legally entitled to vote will that vote be removed from the official record.
It is incumbent on the several States to assist any challenged voter to prove her or his right to vote. At NO COST to the voter, each jurisdiction will apply all resources to provide documentation that the voter has the right to vote. In no case will any jurisdiction require the voter to pay for this research. If no documentation can be found, the voter has the right for the jurisdiction to explain its efforts to prove her or his ineligibility, and for no cost to the voter.
If a jurisdiction is found to be negligent in these aspects, no Federal funds for any purpose shall be appropriated by Congress, and if appropriated, shall be blocked by the President, or from appointed officers as she or he may have confirmed by the Senate. This loss of funds shall continue for a minimum of five (5) years. Only after petition and approval shall any Federal funds be restored to those jurisdictions.
In keeping with the previous paragraph, the Federal government shall immediately take over more local jurisdictions with regards to the disbursement of funds to public educational institutions, individuals, and other parties affected. The intention of this law is not to punish the end users, but the administrators. In no case will Medicaire be suspended for those in need of it, but the administration of it will be removed to the Federal government.
If any voter has been found to represent her or his case falsely and with malice, that person shall not have any claim to vote for five (5) years after the disposition of the matter. That person is also subject to criminal sanctions, and if convicted of falsely and with malice submitting dishonest credentials shall be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 and incarceration for no longer than one year in a Federal correctional facility, subject to the discretion of the judge for any particular case. In no way are there Federal sentencing guidelines for these cases.
OK, I know that this is not very precise, but I hope that you get my idea. With 50 different states and 50 different sets of what allows one to vote, things are confusing. The Supreme Court has over a century of precedence to allow the Federal government to have the states meet minimum requirements, and I think that my clumsy first stab at it makes a bit of sense.
My central point is that requirements to be a proper voter should be uniform over the Nation. When I registered in Arkansas those many decades ago, all that I had to do with sign a statement that I was who I am, confirm my birthdate, and sign my name. That has served me well since 1975. I have never been turned down to move my registration.
But now, with many states wanting to ban voters who the powers that be do not like, a birth certificate (good luck on one of those if you do not have time an money!), a Social Security card (sorry, not photo ID), or something (or lots of things) are required to allow you even to get near a ballot. That is WRONG!
My grandmum, a native born citizen, voted all of her life without a birth certificate, a Social Security card, or any photo ID. My grandfather, on the other side, had to show that he was a naturalized citizen, ONCE. After that, he was on the rolls.
Voter suppression is very real and very pernicious, and is about all purveyed by the Republicans. I NEVER want someone to vote who does not have the right, but to make it so, so difficult for those who do, and just might not have the "papers", just like a regime that we need to remember so that we do not repeat those horrible mistakes ever again.
I guess that I am raving now, but it is a good rave. Let me restate my thesis:
The government has the responsibility of confirming the right of an individual to vote, not the other way around. That is a right, not a privilege, and government is in the business of affirming rights, paid for by ALL of us.
Let me know if this makes any sense. I think that it does, but am sort of not the best, or at least, the most non involved critic here.
Warmest regards,
Doc, aka Dr. David W. Smith
Crossposted nowhere, because no one reads any of those sites any more.