danivon

Why should citizens have inconsistent rights as to voting in Federal elections, based only on which State they live it?

The Civil Rights battle, and the ending of Jim Crow laws settled this matter. Whether opponents of gerrymandering or voter suppression tactics can be as effective in their efforts remains to be seen. But the logic of "equal treatment under law" should extend to voting rights, and electoral process.They are, after all, laws.

Exactly. Surely as he has claimed my position is 'weak', Tom (or someone else who defends State interferemc) can mount a compelling case.

By the way, the US Constitution has a surprising omission, one that most other national constitutions do not. While there are several places where it says that voting rights cannot be denied on various bases (religion, race, gender etc) it doesn't actually include a right to vote for individual citizens.

danivon

By the way, the US Constitution has a surprising omission, one that most other national constitutions do not. While there are several places where it says that voting rights cannot be denied on various bases (religion, race, gender etc) it doesn't actually include a right to vote for individual citizens.

Only about 5% of adult Americans had the franchise till about 1830. In most states, property had to be owned by adult white men ...
Gerrymandering represents an attack on the ideal of liberal democracy.
Although the original constitution did support the idea that States could discriminate on rights, it was after all written to specifically ensure that slavery could continue, The widening of the franchise, the end of slavery and the 14th Amendmment set the table for the end of that discrimination. That it took another hundred years to get to the point where the idea of equal treatment under law included women voting and the end of Jim Crow laws in the South isn't down to the nature of the Constitution. Its down to the nature of the politicians, and the majority of citizens slow acceptance of the true meaning of liberal democracy, versus the benefits of the status quo for the incumbent.
Somewhere along the line, the argument that all Americans are created equal under the law is going to be interpreted broadly to include equal treatment with all election laws... Its an inevitable destination, although the freedom train appears to run slowly when viewed over the long course of history.

Danivon there is an interesting argument that the denial of voting rights violates the First Amendment. That would not be an explicit protection of voting rights but a protection nevertheless (equal protection is based on group membership) The argument is that the government is violating an individual's first amendment rights when they infringe on their voting rights based on their beliefs.

States decide how to handle their own voting procedures, the Federal govt has no right to decide this unless it violates federal rights. So requiring identification should be a states issue while say requiring one to own land, then the federal law trumps the state. The federal government has weaseled their way into so many aspects of all laws, no wonder many forget about States Rights and when a State sets laws contrary to the others, people get so upset even when it may certainly be well within their "rights" to do so. The whole marijuana legality comes to mind, we have not seen the end of this issue, the federal govt has ways to weasel into those decisions as well.

You still haven't addressed individual rights, Tom. Or that I am talking about Federal elections.

I don't see any individual rights being refused, Federal election or not

GMTom wrote:I don't see any individual rights being refused, Federal election or not

Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it's not there... If you know your Constitution, you'll know what the 9th Amendment says.

I really don't see (other than American pre-occupation with the State v Federal debates) why this is so difficult.

Election law for state offices, fine, determine at State level.
Election law for Federal offices? Determine Federally.

If a person who meets criteria to be able to vote in a Federal election in State A, why should they not be able to in State B? Or vice versa?

If a State gerrymanders the districts to suit one or other (or both) parties in a Federal election, is that not interfering with the relationship between the individual voting citizens and their representatives at Federal level?

funny how the courts don't see it as a problem either?
just because YOU see the problem doesn't mean it \'s their either now does it?
I don't see how this is so difficult and in fact, I tend to think the courts know a bit more.

GMTom wrote:funny how the courts don't see it as a problem either?

These being courts stacked by political appointments? Gosh, I can't think why that might be.

Of course, Courts have intervened at times when it comes to States manipulating electoral law, there's plenty of case law.

just because YOU see the problem doesn't mean it \'s their either now does it?
I don't see how this is so difficult and in fact, I tend to think the courts know a bit more.

So are you seriously telling me that gerrymandering is not a problem? That it doesn't happen in the USA?

Because there are some maps you may want to take a look at...

Danivon,
Are you OK with a FEDERAL mandate to require ID in order to vote?

but I can't see the problem? I am being told that because I don't see a problem does not mean it's there!?
If I tell you there are aliens watching over us, does that mean you are wrong simply because you refuse to see something I might claim to see?

and I am the one who is being stubborn????

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Are you OK with a FEDERAL mandate to require ID in order to vote?

On the conditions that it is fair and reasonable and does not disenfranchise people, I don't have a big problem with ID laws.

However, my preference is not the issue here - it's whether a 'FEDERAL' mandate can apply for 'FEDERAL' elections.

As I understand it, democratic elections to a level of government are about a relationship between the electors and that level of government. Please advise me if you see it otherwise.

There is tons of precedent for Federal rules on voting and elections, particularly when it comes to Federal elections. It has been Constitutional as far as I can tell.

GMTom wrote:but I can't see the problem? I am being told that because I don't see a problem does not mean it's there!?
If I tell you there are aliens watching over us, does that mean you are wrong simply because you refuse to see something I might claim to see?

and I am the one who is being stubborn????

Are you here denying that there has been gerrymandering of federal districts?

Or what? It's quite clear to me what I am saying, but all you seem to be doing is making bizarre swipes at things that are pretty orthogonal to my position, and claiming this makes my position weak. Yet apparently it's fine for you to try and lead us up a cul-de-sac (aliens? wtf!)

Do you really need to see examples of gerrymandering to accept that it occurs?

of course they get drawn up that way and I would have zero problem requiring more fairly drawn maps, but to claim rights are being refused, it's not to that level and is far from it. We in the States usually detest the federal government stepping all over our State rights, we prefer as little in the hands of the Federal govt as possible yet it grows and grows and grows, problem there is so does the State. Hands off is what we usually prefer, you are calling for even greater federal authority and that's just not how most Americans like things done. Heck, we prefer as much as possible going to the county or town even!