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

Tue May 28 21:18:23 PDT 2013

No, I don't think it's fair to say I, 4 gives Congress plenary power over voting, even for congressional elections. It certainly does not give Congress power over elections for state offices or for choice of presidential electors, except incidentally.

Mark Scarberry

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Josh Douglas <joshuadouglas at uky.edu>
Date: 05/28/2013 7:40 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Bev Harris <bev at blackboxvoting.org>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Doesn't the "right to vote" proposed amendment create a problem?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130528/41787417/attachment.html>