General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDNC Adopts Resolution Calling for 'Right-to-Vote' Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Donna Brazile ?@donnabrazileDNC (Adopts) Resolution Calling for 'Right-to-Vote' Amendment to the U.S. Constitution http://zite.to/1GfZ6TY
DNC Committee Members Pass Resolution Calling for Guaranteeing an Individuals Right to Vote
____Today, the Democratic National Committee unanimously passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Amendment explicitly guaranteeing an individuals right to vote. After its passage, DNC Vice Chair of Voter Expansion and Protection Donna Brazile released the following statement:
Last year at the DNC Winter Meeting, we announced the Voter Expansion program to ensure that every eligible voter is registered, every registered voter is able to vote, and that every vote is counted. Today we built on this critical mission by unanimously passing a resolution to amend the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee Americans right to vote. The Democratic Party stands for inclusion, and we know that we are all better when everyone has a voice in the democratic process. The right to vote is a moral imperative, and I am proud to support this resolution.
full resolution, adopted on Saturday, February 21, 2015, at the DNC Winter Meeting: http://bradblog.com/?p=11048
Submitted by: Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chair/District of Columbia
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair/Florida
Christine Pelosi, California
Maria Elena Durazo, DNC Vice Chair/California
Anita Bonds, Chair, District of Columbia
Leah Daughtry, At-Large/New York
Bel Leong-Hong, At-Large/Maryland
Minyon Moore, At-Large/District of Columbia
Virgie Rollins, National Federation of Democratic Women/Michigan
Lottie Shackelford, At-Large/Arkansas
James Zogby, At-Large/District of Columbia
Resolution on a Right-to-Vote Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
WHEREAS, in a democracy, the right to vote is a moral imperative, the most fundamental legal right and is protective of all other rights; and
WHEREAS, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act he said, "The right to vote is the basic right, without which all others are meaningless"; and
WHEREAS, each state, except for the State of Arizona, has explicitly enshrined the right to vote with at least some level of protection in its state constitution; and
WHEREAS, nowhere in the United States Constitution is there an explicit declaration of the right to vote, which weakens protection in federal courts and undercuts state voting rights protections due to state courts often "lock stepping" rights to the level of support provided federally; and
WHEREAS, the United State Supreme Court has called the right to vote a fundamental right, this fundamental right should be explicitly guaranteed to all Americans in the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, as President Barack Obama, as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, began each of his constitutional law classes sharing with his students the surprising fact that an explicit "federal individual right to vote" is not in the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the only reference to an individual right to vote in the original U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is the requirement that any citizen qualified to vote for a member of a state's most "numerous house of the state legislature" is eligible to vote for Members of the House of Representatives; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the passage of the Bill of Rights and 7 of those amendments pertain to voting - 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th - but none of them add the explicit, fundamental, affirmative, individual, citizenship or federal right to vote to the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, three amendments outlaw discrimination in voting, whether on the basis of race (15th) with the 1965 Voting Rights Act serving as the implementing legislation for this amendment 95 years later, sex (19th), or age (26th); and
WHEREAS, a right to vote constitutional amendment would fulfill the promise of the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments; and
WHEREAS, of the 119 nations that elect their public officials using some form of democratic elections, 108 have the right to vote in their constitution, but the United States is one of the 11 nations - including Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, India, Indonesia, Nauru, Samoa, and the United Kingdom - that does not explicitly contain a citizen's right to vote in its constitution; and
WHEREAS, with the exception of certain federal laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009, the U.S. has virtually no national uniform standards for voting systems controlled by the states; and
WHEREAS, since voting is a state right, with virtually no national uniform standards, we have ended up with multiple and varied election systems in the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia), 3,143 counties (or county equivalents), and about 13,000 local voting jurisdictions that administer about 186,000 precincts, all organized and controlled and managed by local election officials with 86% of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Preclearance objections involving local, not national or state, voting issues; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has unfortunately undermined the right to vote in recent years, notably in its 2013 decision of Shelby County v. Holder which made the preclearance requirement ineffective and, as Freedom Rider, Selma marcher and US Congressman John Lewis so aptly stated, "struck a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act"; and
WHEREAS, since 2014 at least 83 restrictive voting rights bills were introduced in 29 states, and the Brennan Center reports that 21 states have enacted restrictive voting laws since 2011, including North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin, and that in Texas alone this will affect more than 600,000 adult-age citizens who do not have state-issued photo identification; and
WHEREAS, voter turnout in November 2014 represented a smaller percentage of eligible voters than in a congressional election since 1942 , voter turnout in many primary elections in 2014 was at an all-time low in more than half of states holding primaries, and voter turnout in some major cities is now in single digits; and
WHEREAS, a "right to vote" constitutional amendment applies to and should be supported by all Americans because it is (a) nonpartisan - not Democratic, Republican or independent; (b) non-ideological - not liberal or conservative; (c) non-programmatic - it does not require you to support or oppose any particular legislative program(s); and (d) non-special interest - it's application is not limited to minorities, women, labor, business, seniors, lesbians and gays or any other special interest groups;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) supports amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the DNC will encourage state parties to work with state lawmakers and others to access the need to petition for a statewide referendum on the November 2016 general election ballot (and all states where this is possible), advocating to amend the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC specifically supports House and Senate Joint Resolutions which would amend the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote - e.g., such as resolution H.J. Res. 25 introduced into the 114th Congress by Congressman Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC supports H.R. 885 to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, as introduced in the 114th Congress by Congressman James F. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin along with 30 cosponsors, including several members of the Congressional Black Caucus; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC will educate the general public on this issue by drafting and distributing this resolution in support of amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote and sharing the resolution with all appropriate governmental officials; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee encourages other organizations and individuals - e.g., political organizations and leaders, religious organizations and leaders, civil rights organizations and leaders, other civic organizations and leaders, business organizations and leaders, voting rights organizations and leaders, labor organizations and leaders, women's organizations and leaders, youth organizations and leaders, gay and lesbian organizations and leaders, environmental organizations and leaders - to pass organization resolutions to endorse amending the United States Constitution to explicitly guarantee an individual's right to vote; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee will establish a Right to Vote Taskforce to make recommendations on changes in laws, regulations, and practices designed to improve voter participation and better uphold voting rights in local, state, and national elections and consider changes to recommend to state and federal constitutions, statutes, and regulations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic National Committee will continue to work with members of Congress and the Obama Administration to repair the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and continue to work with various Secretaries of State and other election administrators to ensure all eligible citizens have access to the ballot box across the country.
read: http://bradblog.com/?p=11048
from Fair Vote blog:
More than a decade ago, FairVote became the leading institutional voice calling for establishing an explicit individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, joining academic stars like law professor Jamin Raskin and historian Alex Keyssar, journalists like John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel, and elected officials like Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr and his tireless aide Frank Watkins.
We held a major conference organized around the vision of a constitutional right to vote in November 2003 and many subsequent events over the years, including with this focused case for the amendment earlier this month by our legal analyst Dania Korkor. We advised drafters of the first right to vote amendment language in 2001 as well as the latest version, HJ Resolution 25 sponsored by Wisconsin's Mark Pocan, Minnesota's Keith Ellison and a growing number of other Members. (See our analysis on amendment language.) We've been particularly focused on how the drive for such an amendment can promote immediate local changes to protect, promote and expand suffrage, with our Promote Our Vote campaign resolutions having stirred concrete actions for change in several jurisdictions.
We believe that the nation coming together to establish such an amendment would go a long way to end the "voting wars" that plague us today. When rules are unclear, it is all too easy for those playing the game to try to push the definition of those rules in their favor. By committing to the fundamental nature of the right to vote, our political leaders can instead focus on what they should do in elections: trying to earn votes from eligible voters, rather than trying to game voter eligibility and access.
For this reason, we're thrilled to see rising support for the amendment, whose key backers of the years have grown to include the Advancement Project, Rainbow Push, Color of Change and makers of the movie Electoral Dysfunction (see Mo Rocca cleverly explain the issue). Our general website on the issue, RightToVoteAmendment.com, highlights new voices and energy for the amendment, including a new petition drive backed by Campaign for America's Future, DailyKos, FairVote Action and more.
This weekend, a major new player emerged: the Democratic National Committee. At its winter meeting, the DNC's executive committee unanimously passed a powerfully worded resolution proposed by DNC Vice Chair of Voter Expansion and Protection Donna Brazile that supported the amendment and called for local, state and national action...
read: http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/right-to-vote-amendment-secures-unanimous-backing-of-dnc-executive-committee/
stone space
(6,498 posts)Stargazer09
(2,132 posts)Any politician stupid enough to fight this should face the wrath of voters.
(And yes, I know there will be quite a few who will fight it, but I hope the majority of Americans will ensure that this amendment passes.)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)when they had no hope of passing it.
Ah, no I DON'T think better late than not at all. This has the capacity to be a demonstration project that progressive initiatives fail.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...but I suspect you won't.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)This was an obvious problem, a worthy problem to address, and it's been known for many election cycles... That can't be said of all needs for reform...
Now after they lose both houses they consider doing something...it's reactionary.
and, as I say, it has tremendous potential to be used as a demonstration of failure of progressive ideas. America doesn't admire losing ideas and you don't roll out truly important ideas in such an environment to get them scratched dented and generally tainted with a loss.
This is the sort of thing you act on quickly when you have majorities after a victories across the board.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...I'm not going to recite the history of their efforts, but I don't share the same short view of their efforts, probably because I've highlighted so many of them over the years (to crickets here, in many cases).
I don't think we can afford to be cynical about efforts to defend and protect the right to vote from our party and party leaders. We can, rightly. criticize them for past shortcomings and mistakes, but I think we'll be better served by also amplifying their efforts when they do reflect our interests and concerns.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)that's just my search results I'm sure such things vary if you can hit the right keyword
bigtree
(85,998 posts)The DNC's new national voter protection hotline, 1-888 ... Aug 3, 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1812729
DNC tries election protection again - Aug 2, 2007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1496396
Democrats Reaffirm Their Commitment to Voting Rights on 42nd Anniversary of Voting Rights Act - Aug 7, 2007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1532176
Voting Rights Institute of the Democratic National Committee (2011) is a permanent organization created to monitor developments in election law, advocate to make voting more accessible, and provide guidance on voting rights and election administration issues. This work is integrally tied to our Party's platform, which commits to fully protecting and enforcing the fundamental right to vote.
http://www.democrats.org/about/voting_rights_institute
Voting Rights Institute
The Real Cost of Voter Id Laws
http://www.democrats.org/the-real-cost-of-photo-id-laws?source=Demtout
Read the DNC Voting Rights Institute report on these proposals here:
http://assets.democrats.org/pdfs/photoid/Dems-report-real_cost_of_voting_ID.pdf
The National Lawyers Council of the Democratic Party (2011)
works to support President Obama's agenda, promote and protect the right to vote, and engage Democratic attorneys in a variety of ways.
http://my.democrats.org/page/s/national-lawyers-council-sign-up?source=Demsfooter
visit DNC's: http://www.votingrightsmatter.com/
Voter Expansion Project
http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/join_president_clinton_and_support_the_voter_expansion_project
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And if you think about it... -those- posts predate the period when the WH and Congress were in Dem control.
So...why did nothing happen when they knew they had an important problem and when they had control?
Sorry, I -am- cynical.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...it's a difficult issue, fraught with every imaginable obstacle; from power, greed, ambition, to outright discrimination.
Let's see if we can move the debate forward.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It might be closer to the truth
But it isn't doing anything for my cynicism about democratic leadership
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...all of that power isn't going to shift voluntarily.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)End Citizens United.
End Television and Radio political ads.
End campaign contributions over $2000.00 per year for any individuals.
Put our government back to doing the business of governance, not campaign solicitation.
wolf-pac.com
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to make sure that candidates are given access to both of those to explain their platforms. And you should add newspaper time. We need to be able to know what they are for and against. I would say instead that we end ads paid for by other than the campaign itself and limit the number of ads even the campaign can show.
I don't know how to limit business and corporations without limiting organizations like Unions and Sierra Club etc. also. one sure thing we need to get rid of Citizens United because when 80 people own more of the wealth than 50% of the people then that means 80 people can afford to buy the election. And that is what I call an oligarchy.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)1):On Television and radio ads: Political ads in any print form are okay, as long as they are clearly labeled as a political influence argument (no native marketing). Political internet sites must be actively sought out by the user; no pop ups or deceptive links. Broadcast debates are good. Staged events, political commentary by politicians, "man on the street" political commentary, and primary coverage which get reported as news (only if presented under the guidelines of the fairness doctrine) are alright.
There might be room for advertisements being electronically broadcast in the final month before an election if; (a) all advertisements must come from the candidates running, (b) a moratorium on attack ads.
2): Organizations may contribute to political parties, candidates, or races together provided that; (a) the total contribution is not more than $2000.00 per member (or whatever portion each member wants to give from their personal limit of $2000.00 per year), (b) There is accompanying documentation explaining the breakdown of contribution amount/ member, (c) A letter might accompany said contribution explaining the goals of the contributing organization.
I think that covers most of it. I am open to suggestions or refinements.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Notwithstanding the Republican's current campaign to deny voting rights, why wasn't this rectified decades ago? What is the downside in guaranteeing that every citizen has a way to vote? I feel as if I'm missing some key piece of information, like is there some hidden poison pill that will backfire on voters if a Right To Vote law was passed?
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...mostly with respect (and with eventual federal guidance) to individual state's right to decide who was eligible which is outlined in the Constitution.
The 'right to vote' is really only expressed in the Constitution as defenses against discriminatory practices and laws by states. As you likely know, states have erected new barriers to voting, almost as fast as Congress enacts protections. It's that 'states rights' defense which has prevented Congress (and the burden of ratifying such amendments) from enacting what many see as federal control over what's been, traditionally, issues individual states have decided.
from UMKC: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm
The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind.
from Article. V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)one felt that way but enough that an amendment would never have passed. Many people do not remember that women were denied the vote, Native Americans and Black people were also denied. But few know that at first it was only land owners who could vote.
Democracy was not quite what it was believed to be for most of the life of this nation. I don't know when the landowner rule or the one governing Native Americans was changed but both the women and black people had to fight for their right to vote. In fact it could be said the black people had to fight twice: Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.
That is why the Constitution has little to say about voting rights.
On voting we do not have a good record. But if we want to call ourselves a Democracy we had better work to make it better.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Only our votes can save the country. Good on the DNC!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Counting 1000+ ballots per precinct, with 20 or more possible items to vote upon, is NOT a job for people.
Either we go to more frequent elections with a maximum number of items upon them (say 10 contests or initiatives) per election (more work for poll inspectors!)
OR, the government builds the voting machines and administers their programming, maintenance, and functionality
OR the government specifies the design of the vote counting machines, and ensures that the machines are built and function as specified by a non-partisan, public process.
Paper ballots and public counting works for Franconia Notch...what do they have, 12 voters, total?
But for any district with over a hundred voters, the odds are the elections would be worse than they are, as far as accuracy and timeliness are concerned.
And your solution would do nothing for the kinds of antics Florida gets up to every year.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)There is no need to go backwards to hand counting ballots. The answer is to use scan-sheet paper ballots that are tabulated on machines with code either written and inspected by government employees, or if outsourced, inspected by government programmers for accuracy.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Honest to God, this should have been started after the 2002 Senate election in Georgia was stolen from Max Cleveland.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and DNC National Development Chair Maynard Jackson Create Voting Rights Action Plan for 2001 Elections
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dnc-chairman-terry-mcauliffe-and-dnc-national-development-chair-maynard-jackson-create-voting-rights-action-plan-for-2001-elections-74025817.html
sourcewatch:
After the 2000 election, the DNC's Voting Rights Institute (VRI) was formed to protect and enforce the right of every American to vote and to ensure that the Constitution's promise is fully realized and that, in disputed elections, every vote is counted fully and fairly.
...amendments to the Constitution are another thing.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)which the federal government DID NOT want to get involved in...because of the aforementioned groups (women, poor, minorities, slaves and prisoners) that the White Men of Property didn't want enfranchised with the vote, back when Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were trying to convince the colonies to fight for independence from England.
Hence, western territories would let their women vote, so that they had enough eligible voters to attain statehood. Southern States would not let their slaves vote, or even be counted as full people. Many states ostracized felons, by denying their franchise for LIFE, long after their debt to society was paid.
Recently many states have enacted onerous PROOF OF VOTER ID laws, again to disenfranchise the poorest and least able to fight their loss of citizenship implied by these laws.
Now, I am all in favor of Universal Sufferage across the nation, putting an end to these inequities. But it's not going to be a cakewalk, and you shouldn't think so. After all, where is the ERA, these days?
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...that this amendment effort is advocating.
I don't believe anyone views this as an easy or assured effort.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)During the times, no matter how brief...they had control of both houses......why didn't Dems do something then when clearly voting rights were then, and Had been at issue?
Dems knew this, clearly by the documents shared right here in this thread.
Timing Is everything. Voting Rights are everything when it comes to winning elections. Given the importance of this matter I am at a loss to understand Why Dems in leadership "let" this happen when the handwriting was Clearly on the wall over the past couple decades.
What am I missing in the debate regarding "timing of Effective action"?
on point
(2,506 posts)Eliminate or limit citizens United (I would say only registered voters in pols district can contribute to them)
Eliminate electoral college, direct popular election of president
Add ability to get laws passed via national initiatives
Add ability to launch constitutional amendment from national election
semanticwikiian
(69 posts)A truly progressive initiative would assert an 'obligation to vote' -- not just a right to vote.
Like Australia, there would be a fine for not voting if one is not excused from voting.
A truly progressive initiative would forbid proprietary voting software in federal elections.
yes this is a 'feel good' resolution, but it's yet another wasted opportunity.
i do love Donna Brazile however this is a mediocre reply to the problem of low voter participation.
A classic half-measure that carefully avoids challenging status quo manipulation and control.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)spanone
(135,844 posts)tblue37
(65,408 posts)verifiable vote counts.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It seems that getting people to vote should be the priority. Hardly anyone voted in 2014. That needs addressed.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)I love the concept