August 6 marked the 50th anniversary of one of the most revolutionary pieces of legislation this country has ever seen: The Voting Rights Act. However—as many journalists and activists have noted—the VRA is under constant threat from those who stand to gain when certain Americans can't vote. We need fundamental reforms to reinvigorate and empower the VRA, preserve our democratic institutions, and prevent a further slide into elitism and oligarchy. Previously, I laid out 13 policy reforms to protect and expand voting.
Here are some details on the first six of these proposed reforms (plus one other), which would remove burdens on access to voting, increase turnout, and preserve the integrity of our election process.
Voting Rights Amendment
The right to vote is actually stated in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which banned that right from being "denied or abridged" based upon race, sex, and for those age 18 or older, respectively. However, because it is only an implied right, this foundation is not secure enough to overcome conservative arguments that these are simply categories which are off limits—and that restrictions for other reasons are allowable. A Voting Rights Amendment would state explicitly that every adult citizen possesses an inalienable right to vote, similar to freedom of conscience or due process. If we truly believe that all persons are created equal, then the right to vote is, quite simply, a human right. Like freedom of speech, it is one of the most important we possess and should thus be enshrined in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, amending the Constitution is a Herculean task given the ease with which opponents can veto proposed changes. This is especially true when such an amendment would have to pass Republican-held state legislatures that have already been heavily gerrymandered to benefit GOP strength. Typically, when reformers advocate a constitutional amendment, they propose something they know will never happen or they are more realistically secretly desiring the Supreme Court to enact their amendment via jurisprudence. However, a right to vote is a broadly popular concept that many, if not most, citizens think they already enjoy. Republican legislators would be facing a voting electorate that is opposed to their efforts to block such an uncontroversial amendment.
While this amendment is unlikely to happen, many activists, members of Congress, and even presidential candidates have already started promoting the idea. And just as with support for overturning Citizens United, an affirmative right to vote could become a litmus test for any Democratic-nominated Supreme Court justices, much like the opposite is almost certainly the case for Republican ones.
Ideally, further reforms would be added to our Constitution to prevent Republicans from rolling them back whenever they next controlled the government, but the near-impossibility of amending our sacred founding document make those an unproductive use of our time and energy at first. Instead we should focus on changes that can be accomplished legislatively. However, with a Voting Rights Amendment, Democrats have nothing to lose politically and it can help expose the Republican Party for what they truly are: Opposed to voting.
If we ever succeed in adding this right to our country's governing document, equal protection would also apply and make it even more difficult for conservatives to deny minorities and Democrats the vote. Adding a constitutional right to vote, along with stronger enforcement measures and penalties in a new Voting Rights Act, would help us protect democracy for generations to come.
National Election Administration
One need look no further than the 2000 presidential election debacle to see the pitfalls of holding 50 separate state elections for a single national office. That's 50 separate state vote-counting rules, recount procedures, result statistics, and records kept. Republican-controlled states also have clear incentive and the political leeway to restrict access to polling stations when they draw precincts, use outdated or paperless voting machines, or as was the case in Ohio in 2004, assign fewer voting machines to Democratic precincts than Republican ones.
None of this is right. The nuts and bolts of administering elections should be handled by the federal government so that it can be consistent across every state and so that Americans aren't in for an unwelcome surprise the first time they go to vote in a new state. Additionally, states are poorly equipped to handle what happens when their citizens move elsewhere, or die yet remain on the rolls, something the federal government and the Social Security Administration is much more adequately designed to handle.
Finally, there is the financial aspect of administering elections. Especially when this task is left up to local government, counties and municipalities not only don't want to adequately fund it, they shouldn't have to given the regressive nature of the taxes they rely on. A national system would also allow cost savings from an economy of scale that is only possible with a uniform system. Lastly, a consistent system of result-counting would facilitate faster, more accurate reporting and statistical analysis of election returns, two issues that readers of this website are no doubt familiar with.
Automatic and same-day voter registration
Registration is one of the biggest impediments to increasing turnout. States with same-day registration such as Minnesota and Maine consistently lead the nation in turnout and there is a very clear link between the policy and increased participation. Oregon just passed a law to automatically register anyone in the DMV system unless they opt out, while North Dakota doesn't even have registration and has encountered no major problems without it.
Hillary Clinton recently endorsed automatic registration and anyone who has ever done campaign work can tell you that voter registration drives are a big priority. There is no logistical reason why the federal government could not automatically register every eligible citizen and keep track of them periodically between elections.
When I turned 18 I had to register with the Selective Service in the unlikely event a draft was instituted: The government clearly has it within its power to apply that concept to voter registration. With a more limited, opt-out system of DMV-based registration like Oregon’s, many citizens who don't drive won't be included, while those who move also have to update registration.
That's why anyone who can prove identity and residency should be allowed to register the same day they vote, as several states allow. No eligible voter should be unable to cast a ballot because they were not registered to vote in advance. Automatic registration saves time, it would save state and local governments money, and it would increase turnout.
Election Day holiday, early voting, vote-by-mail
Election Day being held on a Tuesday, or on a Thursday or Saturday as in some states, is an antiquated byproduct of historical circumstances that no longer apply in modern America. Millions of Americans cannot afford to take off from work, or can't come to the polls early in the evening because they have to take care of their kids. We shouldn't burden these individuals simply for exercising their democratic right to vote.
Many other countries have made Election Day a national holiday, and this would go a long way toward easing the financial penalty that voting places upon working-class people. However, even a voting holiday will still burden many workers who either hold essential jobs or who are so desperate for employment they will take any opportunity for work hours they can get. Many citizens, especially the millions of Americans who lack paid vacation or sick days, will take the opportunity to enjoy a rare day off.
It's also important to have not just ample early voting days, but early and election day voting hours that can accommodate people who work irregular hours. Even when voters can spare the time, it is a travesty that anyone should be forced to stand in line for several hours simply to exercise their right. Encouraging a vote-by-mail option all but eliminates this problem by allowing voters to fill out their ballot, sign it, and either mail it in or drop it off at a designated site.
Mail voting has a clear impact on easing voter access in the few states where it is an option, such as California, Oregon, and Washington. And mail ballots, in conjunction with automatic registration, could further increase turnout if the government mailed all registered voters a ballot as Colorado did in 2014. Ultimately, voting should cost as little of the voter's time or money as possible and these reforms would go a long way toward alleviating the class bias in the way we currently conduct voting.
End felon disenfranchisement and voter ID
For all the media attention given to the issue of voter ID during the past four years, the issue is negligible compared to the disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons. Nearly six million American citizens are unable to vote because of current felony incarceration, and in several states they are banned from voting for life.
In Florida, where felons are banned for life, nearly one in four black adults is disenfranchised. Over 85 percent of those individuals are not in prison, not on probation, and not on parole. Even if just a quarter of them had turned out in 2014 as one study estimated, Rick Scott would have lost to Charlie Crist in the gubernatorial election. And George W. Bush never would have become president at all.
Virginia is another such state with a large black population which is disproportionately disenfranchised for life due to felony conviction. The majority of lifetime-ban states are in the South, while two of the whitest states in the country, Maine and Vermont, let all inmates vote. Felony disenfranchisement is undeniably racist, created due to bigotry, and maintained because the Republican Party stands to gain from it.
As Americans have repeatedly seen over the past year since Michael Brown was murdered in Ferguson, Missouri, our criminal justice system is anything but just, with vast racial disparities in policing and sentencing. Many people are wrongly convicted and due to decades of racist policies such as the War on Drugs, those disenfranchised are disproportionately black men.
We should do away entirely with felon disenfranchisement. Even convicted criminals still reserve their inalienable rights to due process and to be treated as human beings, even if privileges are revoked. The goal of our justice system should be rehabilitation and that is easier to accomplish when convicts maintain their connections to civic life instead of having them irrevocably severed. White supremacist conservatives started implementing felon disenfranchisement soon after freed slaves gained the right to vote, and those who embody modern day institutional racism would stand the most to lose without it.
Myriad Republican-controlled states passed nearly identical voter ID laws secretly authored by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election—that tells you all you need to know about the intended partisan impact. However, the electoral impact of voter ID is far less clear-cut than felon-disenfranchisement because hundreds of thousands of elderly, white conservatives also lack adequate identification or even a birth certificate, just like many African Americans. Still, one recent study concluded that voter ID might have swung a 2014 congressional race to Republicans.
There is no denying that conservatives have passed these laws to single out particular groups they dislike. Those least likely to have state-issued identification are disproportionately poor and nonwhite. Voter impersonation fraud is practically nonexistent. A comprehensive study of roughly one billion votes cast over a period more than a decade long yielded just 31 cases of impersonation fraud. Meanwhile, election fraud in the form of absentee ballots, ballot-stuffing, etc., is much greater in comparison, but still extremely rare.
That states such as Texas exclude IDs issued from public colleges—yet allow a concealed-carry permit—tips Republicans' hand as to the impact they desire: Harming Democrats. Impersonation fraud is a red herring and since voters have to prove their identity when they register to vote, there is no legitimate reason why we should require an ID to cast a ballot. It is a poll tax, the hallmark of our new Jim Crow, and should be unconstitutional under the 24th Amendment. We just need an act of Congress or a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court to overturn precedent to rid ourselves of this naked form of discrimination.
Lower the voting age to 16
Most of the country allows Americans ages 16 or 17 to drive a car, consent to sex with adults of any age, and be charged for crimes as an adult. So why is it that these citizens are barred from voting? There is little difference developmentally between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old. Both are likely to still be in high school, living with their parents, and out of the labor force.
Several foreign countries and localities already allow younger citizens to vote, while municipalities in the U.S. are starting to experiment with a lower voting age as well. The result isn’t that 16-year-olds merely vote how their parents tell them, but instead can make their own decisions. In some places, right after the voting age decreased, these citizens were more likely to turn out than those aged 18 to 24.
Many things we reserve for adults of older age are done to protect minors from certain dangers, but voting is an act of civic engagement. Voting is a habit and, just like with bad habits, starting younger will create more lifelong practitioners. Fundamentally, 16-year-olds are old enough to understand the issues affecting them and should have the right to participate in our democracy.
Require non-voters to opt out
This policy is frequently referred to as compulsory voting, but that name is a complete misnomer. Despite Republican hysterics when President Obama half-seriously suggested instituting opt-out voting earlier this year, nobody is proposing we become North Korea and put a gun to the heads of those who don't fill out the ballot and vote the correct way.
Here's how it could work: The government mails every registered voter a ballot, provides them with free postage to mail it back, and fines them a modest amount—for instance, $20—if they don't at least sign and return it blank or vote “none of the above.” That would take just a few minutes and if someone truly doesn't want to vote, nobody is forcing them to do so.
Why should we want voters to have to opt out from voting, rather than opt in? The most important reason why Americans don't vote isn't disinterest in civic life—it's because voting takes time and money, and many feel as if their individual vote doesn't matter. If current non-voters are forced to set aside time to take even a small action to avoid voting, they will be more likely to actually vote because the vast majority of them already have opinions about the issues, yet won't make the time on their own. In this way, opt-out voting is a way to help Americans help themselves.
Australia was plagued by low voter turnout in the 1920s, so in 1924 the country instituted so-called compulsory voting. Turnout is now consistently more than 90 percent and the population overwhelmingly approves of it, seeing voting as a civic duty much like jury duty. Democracy simply does not work without popular participation and one only needs to look at Ferguson, Missouri, to see how a turnout rate in municipal elections barely above 10 percent resulted in a local government radically unrepresentative of the citizenry.
Wealthy and powerful elites stand to gain when a vast segment of the population is left out of the political decision-making process. Opponents of opt-out voting bemoan how it would force millions of stupid people to vote and damage our body politic as a result. But here's the deal: Millions of uninformed and unintelligent people already do vote, as is their right. Assuming which citizens are qualified to vote and who we'd be better off without reeks of the condescending rationale used to justify literacy tests and voting restrictions under Jim Crow.
The solution to uninformed people voting isn't dissuading them from casting a ballot—it's educating them in the first place. Requiring citizens to take action to avoid voting will induce many current non-voters to learn more about the issues and candidates on their ballot in the first place. We know based on the demographics of non-voters what the true impact would be: An electorate that is less white, less wealthy, and more predisposed towards government policies that promote economic equality.
Studies from foreign countries with similar voting systems show a clear boost to progressive policies, with some estimating that left-of-center parties stand to gain several percentage points in support. The Republican Party in its current form would never win another national election and would have to shift dramatically toward the center on a whole host of issues. The outcome would be public policy which more accurately reflects the wishes of the populace, which is the very essence of democracy.
If we have learned one thing in recent years from the Republicans' systematic efforts to suppress the vote, it's that if everyone votes, Democrats and progressives win. However, making voting as secure and easy as possible isn't the end of the story, which is why we don't just need a reinvigorated Voting Rights Act: We need to reform our very political system.
The legitimacy of our democratic system is diminished if some votes and citizens count more than others. That's why the next segment in this series will look at some proposed changes to our electoral system.
