Download The Privilege to Vote

The Privilege to Vote: An Assessment of American Disenfranchisement By Connor Aberle The core tenet of American democracy, voting, is precariously close to crisis. “Voting rights” are non­existent: the Constitution grants no one the right to vote. The founding document simply prohibits certain forms of exclusionary voting practices, allocating to the states the ability to regulate their own electoral rules. For the purposes of this essay, I refer to “voting privileges” rather than “voting rights,” because states hold the power to revoke one’s ability to vote. In fact, voting privileges are not granted to all citizens in the United States, and without action states may revoke the suffrage of numerous minorities. For all the presidential candidates’ persistent arguing over ISIS, taxes, and immigration, they have been particularly reticent over the frail nature of voting privileges—the foundation upon which the American government functions. How did America get here, what threat do states pose to voting rights, and what can people do about it? The Past
The Fifteenth Amendment provided the original voting­discrimination protections to people of color. The problem with the Fifteenth Amendment and all subsequent federal voting protections arises from its negative phrasing. Instead of establishing a right to vote—thereby prohibiting all forms of discrimination—the Fifteenth Amendment illegalizes only certain forms of discriminatory practices. This landmark amendment unfortunately permits other, legal means to achieve the same discriminatory ends. States no longer practiced discrimination based on “race, creed, or color:” they instead employed taxes or literacy tests, both of which do not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because they do not explicitly target people of color. Because many Democratic Southern states adopted tactics like poll taxes, many black Americans lost their voting privileges. States also instituted discriminatory policies that violated the Constitution by exploiting the lengthy process of the court system. ​
Sarah Childress​
of Frontline writes: Before 1965, when the [Voting Rights Act] was first passed, state and local governments came up with ever­inventive ways to keep blacks from voting, forcing the federal government to launch countless legal battles. When Texas was prohibited from holding all­white primaries in 1927, for example, it passed a new law to allow the party leadership to decide who could vote. They chose an all­white primary. The practice of exploiting the legal system rendered reactionary policing of discriminatory laws impossible. The procedure of contesting illegal electoral policies as they appeared became an insurmountable burden for the federal government to bear. History displays that, whether or not the Constitution forbids discriminating against marginalized communities, states will find a means of doing so—legally or illegally. Spearheaded by Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s death, the Voting Rights Act came to fruition in 1965. The ​
legislation​
, as well as reaffirming the protections of the Fifteenth Amendment, ordered that certain states must obtain preclearance from the Department of Justice before changing their voting laws. This shifted policing of discriminatory voting practices from reactionary to preventative. The provision critically obstructed disenfranchisement by blocking the discrimination and legal battles that had plagued the nation for the 95 years prior, and it upheld the entire conservation of voting privileges for people of color. The Present In a 5­4 ​
decision​
in 2013, the Supreme Court essentially struck down the previously described provision of the Voting Rights Act. In fairness, it has been 51 years since its passage. Public opinion has shifted since then, and perhaps America has entered a new era of racial progress in which legislation that prevented states from enacting racist voting laws is antiquated. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Immediately following the ruling, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia implemented ​
laws​
requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. States had previously been unable to obtain clearance for this practice from the federal government under the Voting Rights Act. The ​
Washington Post​
reports that these laws significantly reduce turnout among young and black voters—people disproportionately less likely to own photo IDs. Many states target racial minorities today by inhibiting people with criminal records from voting. Because police disproportionately arrest black citizens for crimes compared to their white counterparts, preventing formerly incarcerated individuals from voting disenfranchises people of color. Additionally, no logic exists in disenfranchising incarcerated people. Is a person only a half­citizen after they serve the legal sanctions for their crimes? Through this nonsensical question, the motivation to take away incarcerated people’s voting privileges reveals itself as purely racial. At a more basic level, America today universally restricts the suffrage of working class citizens. The United States stands alone among industrialized nations by not automatically registering people to vote and by having no national holiday for elections, nor holding them on a weekend. This system inhibits working class and younger voters from reaching the polls on Election Day. Once one adds the requirement of sitting at the DMV to pay for and obtain a driver’s license on top of the litany of prerequisites to voting, the hoops to jump through become too much to handle. Inaction to fix this problem becomes an active suppression of voting privileges over time. Under the veil of “progress,” some of the United States maintains a racial hegemony in which white, middle­class citizens possess greater access to voting than the poor and people of color. Like the Jim Crow era, states today continue to invent new policies with racially sanitized language, but nevertheless seek to limit the power of voters of color. America’s present resembles its past, but its future could be bleaker yet. The Future The Supreme Court’s decision carries dire implications beyond Voter ID laws. The repeal of the preclearance provision permits states to pursue avenues of discrimination previously blocked by the Voting Rights Act. States may now have new targets as well. As marginalized communities gain recognition, states attain an incentive to discriminate against them. For example, nothing in the Constitution prohibits discrimination against gay people, and without the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, nothing prevents States from passing laws banning gay people from voting. In fact, Republicans would have an incentive to do so: ​
Gallup​
finds that LGBT individuals skew Democratic. Thus, limiting LGBT voting power directly weakens the Republican’s opposing party. Any minority faces the revocation of their voting privileges in the future. Either through legal means or, as witnessed in the past, through exploitation of the lengthy legal process, states are able to control who retains voting privileges. They could even restrict American voting privileges based on something as arbitrary as hair type. The United States citizens of today could forge a brighter tomorrow, however. The establishment of an explicit right to vote in the Constitution will remedy the problems occurring today and tomorrow. An amendment to the Constitution stating every American has the right to vote would safeguard against laws that diminish the voter turnout of one group, like voter ID laws or laws removing the suffrage of convicted felons. It would prevent any type of voter discrimination not proscribed in the Constitution already. Organizations like ​
FairVote​
have advocated for this constitutional amendment for over a decade. Unfortunately, constitutional amendments require a great deal of collective action and occur rarely. Therefore, many people may question the possibility of an amendment to the Constitution today. American politics in the present continues to polarize, decreasing the chances of ratifying an amendment to the founding document. But with the nonexistent status of voting rights and with disenfranchisement being a reality in 2016, perhaps an amendment is the little glimmer of hope needed for the American people to navigate today’s polarized political landscape.