'Voting is not limited to or guaranteed to citizens'

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text The* Editorial Board
@johnastoehr
In this interview, @PhdRachel provides a history class on the permeable membrane separating citizenship and voting. The difference is not what you think it is.

‘Voting is not limited to or guaranteed to citizens’

editorialboard.com
‘Voting is not limited to or guaranteed to citizens’
The difference between citizens and non-citizens isn't what you think.
6:59 PM · Jan 24, 2022

https://www.editorialboard.com/voting-is-not-limited-to-or-guaranteed-to-citizens/

Most of us tend to think that voting is one of the guaranteed privileges of being a citizen of the United States. But throughout our history, the link between voting and citizenship has been fluid and fraught.

Non-citizens used to vote. Citizens were barred from voting. Women could even have their citizenship revoked if they married immigrants. The only constant was that politics defined the line between them.

This is important to note given the nativist rage against immigrants and the fascist conspiracy theories about non-citizens voting. But there was a time when voting was considered preparation for citizenship. Citizenship didn’t have to come first. Voting did. Indeed, enfranchisement was used as a means of attracting immigrants.

The nativists and the fascists (they’re usually the same) want you to believe that citizenship and voting are linked permanently, as if we’re talking about gravity. They want you to think outsiders were never welcome on the inside. They want you to think the value of citizenship depends on exclusion. That’s not true. It never was.

Fact is, voting is not a guaranteed right, not even to citizens.

*snip*

[everyonematters]

1. The 15th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous ...

It can't be a right for just black people.

If it's a right for some people - it is a right for everyone.

[brooklynite]

2. Not the point...

The 15th Amendment says that IF people are allowed to vote, they must not be discriminated against. However, the Constitution only allows voting for House and Senate. States can choose any process they want to select Electors for President, and don't HAVE to allow voting for State and Local offices.

[everyonematters]

3. If they do it by election, then it's a right.

If they have an election to decide who gets the electors, then it's a right. Right now every state has an election.

[moniss]

4. First

let me say I have no idea what this article is trying to do but it is factually off base by a mile. It uses as its' basis a Supreme Court case from 1874 which has been rejected by the Warren Court in the '60's. The 1965 case of Harman v Forssenius was just one of several decisions in which the Court spoke loudly about voting being a fundamental right and notes that it is fundamental because it is "preservative" of all rights. The direct quote with additional cases noted is here. Although Harman originated about a suppression scheme the emphasis of the Justices in their statement could not be more profound. They are clear that they mean broad application to the subject of voting rights in totality.

"[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 . The right is fundamental "because preservative of all rights." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370"

Reynolds v Sims was from 1964 and struck down states having the ability to have grossly unequal total populations in state senate legislative districts. One person, one vote. Chief Justice Warren wrote "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." While we might disagree now whether economic interests in our reality do in fact elect legislators we cannot ignore the principle that Warren clearly stated.

Yick Wo v Hopkins is from 1886 and struck down laws that have discriminatory effect. The principle is that a law can be constructed so as to be worded in a seemingly non-discriminatory manner but may still have the effect of being discriminatory in its' application. The Court stated clearly what Equal Protection is about when it said about the 14th Amendment:

" It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by section 1977 of the Revised Statutes that 'all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

Notice two very important but usually overlooked points made by the Justices. First that "equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws". So they are clear that it is not just the enforcement/application of a law that must be equal under the Amendment but the laws must be written to be equal from the start. As Progressives and Democrats we must understand that principle, take it to heart and argue the Yick Wo case at every turn against those who would pass the current crop of voter suppression laws. Yick Wo stands to this day and has been cited by the USSC in well over 100 cases.

The second point from Yick Wo that I mentioned is one of the most profound phrases about the US Statutes enacting the 14th that
we have. All persons are to have "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." The benefits of a law must be equal also. As an example having laws/ordinances that result in people in some neighborhoods standing in line for many hours to vote while other neighborhoods do not means that you have unequal benefits under the those laws. Lastly one of the most important things anybody could take away from Yick Wo is the Justices pointing out that not only is this about equal benefit but "and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." And to no other. Four very powerful and simple words. Those words need to be argued every time when discussing criminal justice outcomes and policing.

[Nevilledog]

5. Umm....it's talking about the history of voting, hence the historical nature of the information.

[moniss]

6. I

am not criticizing you first of all. The article makes assertions like they are applicable today based on an out of date case and I went through that at length. The information and conclusions in the article are not really correct as I pointed out. I guess I should have just left the misleading article out there.

[niyad]

7. KNR