• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Amendment Making Voting A Right

Would you support a voting rights amendment?


  • Total voters
    40
Since when are judges elected?

Governor or Legislative Appointment: In 4 states, judges are appointed by the
governor or (in South Carolina and Virginia) the legislature. Gubernatorial appointments
usually require the consent of the upper house of the legislature or the participation of a special commission such as an executive council. In most of these states, judges serve a term (ranging from 6 to 14 years) and then may be reappointed in the same manner. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, judges enjoy lifetime or near-lifetime tenure.


Merit Plan: In 23 states, judges are nominated by a nonpartisan commission, and

then appointed by the governor. Judges serve a term and then are subject to a retention election, where they run alone, and voters can either approve another term or vote against them. Terms vary but on the whole are less than those in appointment states.



Nonpartisan Election: In 15 states, judges run for election. Their political
affiliations are not listed on the ballot, and so voters, unless specifically informed, do not know a candidate's political party. These judges serve a term and then may run for
reelection. The terms range from 6 to 10 years.


Partisan Election: In 8 states, judges run for election as a member of a political
party. They serve a term in the range of 6 to 10 years for the most part and then may run for reelection.

Are state judges appointed or elected
 
No. No need for it and there are other amendments that have been waiting in the wings for decades that deserve our attention.

????? Not aware of any serious amendment waiting in the wings ?????
 
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. Would you support such an amendment?

Choices: Would you support a voting rights amendment?

Yes
No
Other (Possibly accomplished with a Federal Statute)

Here is what is being proposed by two Democratic representatives:

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.


“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”


The brief amendment would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” It would also give Congress “the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

snip

Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Block Voting Rights Challenges | TPMDC

If this were reallly about rights I would support it. It seems more like trying to sidestep voter ID laws, which I think we should have.

What person in the 2013 doesn't have an ID of some sort, and can't go get a free one? (ID should be free if you want to vote but can prove you can't afford it.)

There's really no excuse.

If their motives were better I'd support it.
 
And the amendment would make it even worse by validating the notion that voting is a privilege instead of a responsibility.

No, that would be making it.................a right.
 
No, that would be making it.................a right.
Yes, good job. You've identified the law of identity. Now, I'm going a step further and looking at what attitude towards voting is validated by such an action and therefore how voting shall be viewed. There's a segment of the population which views voting as a privilege, and by making it a right, we are validating that viewpoint.
 
Because of the absurdity and callousness that I see so often here, let me add my own:

I say we should have a voting rights amendment and even move toward direct democracy where we don't just elect representatives, we also vote directly on the laws they propose. Here's the catch: voting with ballots is not "the American way" and we should vote with our dollars. Example, you vote for your choice for president or other representatives, and whoever gets the most money wins the election. Everyone who participated in the race keeps their money. As for laws, our elected representatives propose laws and the nation votes with their dollars for the law or against it. Yes, corporations can vote because corporations are people too! If more money flows against it the law isn't passed, and if more money flows for it then the law is passed. Either way the government keeps all the money, and because this process will generate a buttload of cash, it will no longer have to tax anything. Think about it, no more taxes!

There are many side benefits to this as well. No indirect lobbying which doesn't represent the people. The system doesn't change that much in reality, as money still would drive the government, but now it gets funded by the people democratically vying for their wishes. It would also have the benefit of those with more money get more say in the government. If poor people don't like that, they just have to get rich. It's not that hard in the US, anyone can get rich if they want to. It's the ultimate in modern democracy!
 
Yes, good job. You've identified the law of identity. Now, I'm going a step further and looking at what attitude towards voting is validated by such an action and therefore how voting shall be viewed. There's a segment of the population which views voting as a privilege, and by making it a right, we are validating that viewpoint.

The level of appreciation you feel people should have for the right isn't relevant.
 
What rationale is there for not allowing people who've served their time to vote again? If they're released back as citizens, they should be able to participate as citizens.

Agreed. While I don't feel like illegals have a right to vote, because they are not citizens of the US, I think that it's silly to not allow felons to vote. They've served their time, and they still live here, so they should have every opportunity to have a say in the direction this country goes in.
 
The level of appreciation you feel people should have for the right isn't relevant.

It has nothing to do with appreciation. Voting exists in our system as a check against government to ensure the ideals of the Republic are maintained. Declaring voting a right makes it instead an individual pursuit which it certainly is not. Any notions of voting outside of this purpose, including further one's own interests or acting upon an ideological belief which runs counter to these principles are outside the scope of our form of Government.
 
It has nothing to do with appreciation. Voting exists in our system as a check against government to ensure the ideals of the Republic are maintained. Declaring voting a right makes it instead an individual pursuit which it certainly is not. Any notions of voting outside of this purpose, including further one's own interests or acting upon an ideological belief which runs counter to these principles are outside the scope of our form of Government.

If voting becomes a right (I'm not seeing a lot of momentum for this, sadly), then it will be dealt with in the same way we do with all our other rights listed in the Bill of Rights: with varying levels of maturity and responsibility, and of course varying degrees of understanding.
 
There are people who say why would you not want to register your gun ... It applies here why would you not want to show your I.D. It would not be that difficult to just show your drivers licenses . All Americans have some form of I. D. bye the time they are 18 so if it is a amendment it would not interfere anyway .
 
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. Would you support such an amendment?

Choices: Would you support a voting rights amendment?

Yes
No
Other (Possibly accomplished with a Federal Statute)

Here is what is being proposed by two Democratic representatives:

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.


“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”


The brief amendment would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” It would also give Congress “the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

snip

Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Block Voting Rights Challenges | TPMDC

Voting is mentioned as a right at least four times in the Constitution bill of rights. So your claim that voting is not a right is blatantly false.



15th Amendment (1870): "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."

19th Amendment (1920): "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."

23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

24th Amendment (1964): "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."

26th Amendment (1971): "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."
 
are you in favor of them being able to own guns too?

I am.People who served their time behind bars should have all their rights restored to them once they get out of prison.If they can not be trusted to have all their rights then they should not be released. Because no anti-2nd amendment law on the book is going to stop them from getting a gun, using a knife, baseball bat or any other weapon if that person is hell bent on revenge or some other violent criminal activity and its a failure of the justice system that such a person was even let out in the first place.
 
Last edited:
In early United States, only land owners (male) were allowed to vote. That seems harsh by todays standards.
But there was good reason NOT to let itinerant laborers and never-do-wells, and transients vote. They had no stake in the local economy.
Owning land was easy. Lot's of free land to homestead. The homesteading was the hard part.
Anyone successful in carving a home out of the wilderness, had EARNED a right to vote.
The best we can do today, is voter IDs to prevent fraudulent votes from dead folks and multiple voting transients, and illegals.

Last I checked drafts back then were not limited to just land owners.Laws were not restricted to just land owners.Taxes were not restricted to just land owners and pretty much anything else the government did was not restricted to just land owners. So the idea these people had not stake is absurd.
 
Voting is mentioned as a right at least four times in the Constitution bill of rights. So your claim that voting is not a right is blatantly false.



15th Amendment (1870): "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."

19th Amendment (1920): "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."

23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

24th Amendment (1964): "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."

26th Amendment (1971): "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."

I swear to god, this happens to me every time I take the OP or any other post at face value. :(
 
I swear to god, this happens to me every time I take the OP or any other post at face value. :(

Don't feel bad about it.Even with these constitutional amendments plain as day clearly state the right of citizens to vote, many will still argue until blue in the face that it doesn't guarantee citizens the right to vote and will still claim voting is a privilege.
 
I worked in an absentee ballot for presidential election in October of 2012. I thought voting was a right...

After 'intreference' from lawyers (advocates), voters could vote without ID, could vote without knowing who they were going to vote for beforehand, could let someone else tell them who to vote for even though not disabled in any way (unless non-political is a disability).

Can't wait until the 16 year olds and the Canadians are allowed to vote. Then voting will truly be a right. Right now, voting is a quasi-right.
 
As post #68 details, I don't think it is necessary, but I am not opposed to the idea, beyond the fact that it seems like a waste of time and effort.

I am not opposed to voter ID laws as long as they provide a four year waiting period and funding for voter outreach before enactment.

Ex-cons should be allowed to vote. This is especially important because many of our laws and law enforcement activities target unpopular minorities.

Higher priorities for amendments:
An explicit right to privacy*, including protection for the private behavior of consenting adults.
(*The right to privacy is already in the constitution in my view, but the courts have not consistently agreed)

Equal rights amendment for women.
 
Same reason they don't want anyone to require an ID, it's hurts their chances of getting elected.
If the state does not provide free ID then it's nothing more than a hidden pole tax. If the state wants to provide voter ID's free of charge I have no problem with it nor should anyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom