[EL] Doesn't the "right to vote" proposed amendment create a problem?

[Josh Douglas]

Hi Bev,

The U.S. Constitution already gives fairly plenary power to Congress (at
least for federal elections) in Article I, Section 4 ("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 Place
of Chusing Senators.")  This amendment would not change that balance --
states still retain the right to regulate elections, subject to
Congressional power for federal elections under the Elections Clause.

(Full disclosure:  I informally advised Rep. Ellison's office on this
amendment.)

Josh


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bev Harris <bev at blackboxvoting.org> wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong. It looks to me like Article 2 in proposed "Right
> to
> Votes" Constitutional amendment (Rep. Mark Pocan) would enable a switch in
> local election controls from state to feds.
>
> http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82457.html
>
> Especially this year, I have become wary of how news media portrays
> proposed
> legislation, as compared with what is actually in the legislation. So when
> I
> saw U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan's proposed Constitutional amendment portrayed
> simply
> as a national right to vote bill, I wondered what else was in it.
>
> Reading the text of the bill, while Article 1 states a right to vote,
> Article 2
> puts the federal government in position to dictate anything it wants to
> control
> local and state elections.
>
>  Here is the proposed amendment in its entirety:
>
>  * * *
>
>  SECTION 1. 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.
>
>  SECTION 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this
> article
> by appropriate legislation.
>
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hjres44ih/pdf/BILLS-113hjres44ih.pdf
>
>  * * *
>
> I must be an old curmudgeon. But as I see it, and please show me where I'm
> wrong
> on this, the proposed Amendment drops just the one shoe while making sure
> the
> other shoe is ready to go. That other shoe--wait for it--is legislation
> with
> specific interpretations of exactly what will "enforce and implement" the
> newly
> specified "right to vote."
>
>  Simply by calling it part of protecting the new "right to vote," any
> aspect of
> any local election could be made subject to federal control.
>
>  As we have seen with the mammoth Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), fat
> reform bills, especially "election reform," are the easiest place to hide
> special interest items, as lobbyist Jack Abramoff admitted while trying to
> ram
> his own agenda through HAVA.
>
>  By amending the Constitution to authorize the U.S. Congress to legislate
> any
> kind of election reform it deems "necessary" to protect right to vote, the
> next
> thing we will see is partisan, political, complex, pork-laden legislation
> under
> the context of helping the new "right to vote."
>
>  Nothing in the amendment limits the ensuing legislation to address ONLY
> right
> to vote issues.
>
> Nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment says anything about
> transparency.
>
>  Internet voting? Um, let's see here... It will protect right to vote by
> making
> it "convenient." Paraphrasing Victoria Collier, "Convenience voting is
> used to
> justify every kind of voting system that doesn't provide for public
> authentication and chain of custody."
>
>  Nothing in the bill limits ensuing legislation to federal elections. The
> language says: "All public elections."
>
>  I quibble with the term "public elections," by the way. What we have in
> America
> are NOT "public" elections. In a "public" election the public must be able
> to
> see and authenticate all essential steps. In a "public" election, the
> public
> would be able to ascertain whether claimed results are true. A public
> election
> must have not only public voting, but public accountability.
>
> Isn't it true that the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of
> Independence on
> which the Constitution is based ALREADY require that representatives be
> "chosen
> by the people" and that the public hold sovereignty over its government?
>
>  This amendment, in effect, changes a stabilizing governmental structure
> laid
> out by the founders, by authorizing the U.S. Congress to pass legislation
> that
> directs states and local governments on how to conduct LOCAL elections.
>
> Bev Harris
> Founder - Black Box Voting
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org
>
> * * * * *
>
> Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
> people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
> right
> to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
> them to
> know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over
> the
> instruments of government we have created.
>
> Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections watchdog
> group
> funded entirely by citizen donations.
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
> Black Box Voting
> 330 SW 43rd St Suite K
> PMB 547
> Renton WA 98057
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Joshua A. Douglas
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
(859) 257-4935
joshuadouglas at uky.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130528/5e22a078/attachment.html>