2016’s Boldest Voting Rights Proposal Yet

[bigtree]

Salon.com ‏@Salon
A Democratic presidential candidate just offered 2016’s boldest voting rights proposal yet http://slnm.us/I6RVl89

___In the crucial early primary state of South Carolina, Martin O’Malley marked the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act with an address to the bipartisan African-American professional group 20/20 Leaders of America, forcefully pushing back against Republican efforts to limit access to the voting booth.

O’Malley blasted the more than 80 bills introduced by Republicans in 29 states over the past year to take advantage of the newfound opportunity to reduce early voting opportunities and require new photo IDs restrictions.

“We know why they’re doing this: because Americans without a photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority — and Democratic,” O’Malley told the gathered leaders.

Arguing that “many Americans don’t realize that the U.S. Constitution does not affirmatively guarantee the right to vote,” O’Malley called for a new amendment to “protect every citizen’s right to vote, once and for all.”

“Passing a constitutional amendment that enshrines that right will give U.S. courts the clarity they need to strike down Republican efforts to suppress the vote,” O’Malley argued today.

While governor of Maryland, O’Malley oversaw the creation of an online voter registration system and signed legislation allowing for same-day registration and expanding early voting...

read: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/04/a_democratic_presidential_candidate_just_offered_2016s_boldest_voting_rights_proposal_yet/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


from the O'Malley campaign:

Aug 4 | Policy
Why we need a constitutional amendment to secure the right to vote

Many Americans believe they have a constitutional right to vote, but the U.S. Constitution guarantees no such right explicitly. While the 14th Amendment provides some protection, it is not comprehensive and has left many Americans vulnerable to Republican efforts to restrict the right to vote:

In 2014, Republican legislators in 29 states introduced more than 80 bills to require a photo ID, make voter registration more difficult, reduce early voting opportunities, and make it harder for students to vote.
As a result, a 2014 report found that voter ID laws in 32 states stood to keep as many as 23 million Americans from successfully voting.

Millions of Americans who voted in the last election are at risk of being turned away from the polls because of restrictive voting laws that require a photo ID, eliminate early voting, and make it harder to register.

To address this voter suppression, progressive leaders in Congress introduced legislation that would amend the U.S. Constitution to explicitly guarantee the right to vote. The legislation’s text is simple and straightforward:

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.

Governor O’Malley believes that nothing is more important in our sacred democracy than the right to vote. As governor, he made it easier – not harder – for Marylanders to vote. He signed a bill restoring voting rights to more than 50,000 people with felony records, expanded early voting and allowed same-day registration. He even revolutionized Maryland’s voter registration process by creating an online system.

Passing a constitutional amendment that enshrines this fundamental right will give U.S. courts the clarity and authority they need to strike down Republican efforts to suppress the vote. The proposed amendment would set a high legal bar to defend against attempts to disenfranchise eligible voters, and empower Congress to enact strong electoral standards nationwide.

Amending the Constitution is hard, but voting shouldn’t be. Our current laws have failed to protect this fundamental right for too many people.

That’s why on the week of the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act…GOVERNOR O’MALLEY IS CALLING FOR A RIGHT-TO-VOTE AMENDMENT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. TY for posting, K and R, best to talk about the issues and not one another

eom

[bigtree]

2. issues are what these campaigns are supposed to be all about

... not many more important that our right to vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Your thread isn't getting much traction. You needed to say something nasty about a candidate...

Your thread isn't getting much traction. You needed to say something nasty about a candidate or a Democratic constituency.

[bigtree]

5. here goes...

Sanders is a plutologist!

...now to just sit back and watch the responses grow.

[lovemydog]

6. Your epidermis is showing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Sanders is a plutologist and a septuagenarian !

Sanders is a plutologist and a septuagenarian !

[FSogol]

4. Another good plan from the candidate of good plans

and the record of accomplishments to back them up.

[stevenleser]

7. And his plan for getting two thirds of the Republican House to pass this amendment is?

Lets break this down. There are 435 total seats in the house.

67% is 292 votes. That's how many votes you need to pass the amendment.

There are 188 Democrats and 246 Republicans in the house (1 vacancy)

Assuming all 188 Democrats vote "Aye", we need 104 Republican votes in the House or 42% of all Republicans in the House.

The problems with that should be obvious, and we haven't even gotten to the state legislatures to ratify, and Republicans control a majority of those too.

[Prism]

9. But at least it'd be entertaining

To watch Republicans vocally fight against the right to vote (instead of their current tactic of passing laws when no one's paying attention).

[stevenleser]

10. I'll give you that. And just in case anyone says it, I question everything that all candidates

propose. I just don't think any of them can pass much of anything in this climate.

[Prism]

13. I don't think it would pass either at this point in time

But as the FMA and Bush proved, it doesn't matter whether or not it has a prayer of passage. Sometimes it's just about getting your base motivated. I don't think Bush personally even wanted the FMA. I think it was a purely cynical ploy to get bigots to the booth.

And you can't say right-wingers weren't motivated in 2004.

[stevenleser]

15. Here's what will happen though. The best ideas of all the candidates will be tried by whoever wins.

Or at least what seems to be the best or the most passable. IIRC some of the stuff Hillary proposed during the campaign made it into Obamacare.

[Prism]

16. Agreed

Whether or not O'Malley is the nominee, I'd like it if whoever the nominee is in the general takes up this idea. I think it would be very motivating for our base.

[bigtree]

11. that's what these elections are all about

...they're not to cozy around the status quo like it's some immovable force of nature. They are an opportunity to generate public support to rally around candidates who intend to advance the changes we need.

If we adopt your 'can't do' attitude, nothing will change. It's not as if there's some irrefutable logic against instituting voting rights into the Constitution. What you cite are political forces standing in the way.

How do you move them out of the way? Elections.

If you don't believe your candidate is up to challenging the status quo, perhaps she isn't the best choice of those who believe voting rights should be amended into the Constitution.

[stevenleser]

12. No, it's not. There is a new reality as of 2008 and it has to be taken into account.

Pretending that you are going to get some Republican support for stuff like this is no way to go about business.

[bigtree]

14. if you don't challenge the system, nothing will change. It's that simple.

...pretending, posturing as if the present obstruction in our national legislature is some immovable force is weak politics; almost inviting failure to change.

[stevenleser]

17. You're not challenging the system, you're ignoring its challenges. There is a difference.

Challenging the system would be the candidates openly saying the Republicans are obstructing the passage of needed bills and making THAT the campaign issue.

Not blindly proposing stuff they know they can't get passed.

[bigtree]

18. I get your platform. It's weak, uninspiring, and short-sighted

...not to mention insulting.

Everyone knows who's standing in the way of legislation. That's every Democrat's campaign issue.

Try imagining never proposing legislating marriage equality, civil rights, legalization of pot - all supposedly immovable political issues in the past which yielded to insistent challenges. Fortunately, folks didn't wait until it was politically advantageous to propose legislating reform, repeal, and repair.

Your politics are far too compliant to those obstructive forces. That's your choice, but you look foolish and weak telling people that they should only propose solutions which the present political class of legislators will support. Stand up and fight for something more than what you think the republican obstructionists will allow.

[stevenleser]

19. No, you want candidates to act as if the challenges don't exist and propose pie in the sky

legislation without acknowledging that the existing political climate makes passage extremely doubtful.

You want people to get all excited about stuff that is not going to happen and you are upset that I am piercing the fantasy.

[bigtree]

20. I can't help you if all you think elections are about are making tepid, mediocre proposals

...designed to conform with what you believe the opposition will allow you to enact.

There's a difference between promising to enact changes and proposing that our nation moves toward solutions. Your ridicule shows how little you understand of the difference between a promise to act and a proposal for our legislature to adopt. Proposing legislative or constitutional acts is democracy 101, and you've earned yourself a failing grade in conflating the two.

It's revealing just how little belief you have in our power to force our political system to change. That's your own shortcoming. It leaves very little to support.

[stevenleser]

21. Your strawman responses don't make this conversation fruitful either. The ref calls it...

[bigtree]

23. you began with an unsolicited, distorted insult of O'Malley's proposal

...and continued with your own weak view of election campaigns.

You got the conversation you deserved.

[stevenleser]

25. Nope, my response stands and you have no counter other than strawmen.

[bigtree]

27. none of the quivering you did about the opposition in the national legislature

...makes this an unworthy proposal or something that shouldn't be introduced in this campaign. Elections are the time to challenge the system to change. That's what this is; a challenge.

You've denounced it - not on its merits, but on the prospect of opposition. That's as good as unilateral surrender. What other proposals are you advocating our candidates shy away from because of the opposition?

[stevenleser]

29. Nope, I didn't say anything like that, that is your strawman. nt

[bigtree]

30. yours is saying o'Malley's 'pretending he's going to get republican support'

...and your surrender is calling it a 'pie in the sky' proposal, knocking O'Malley for 'blindly proposing something he knows won't pass, and making it your mission to 'pierce' what you call a 'fantasy.'

You attempted to belittle the proposal, belittle O'Malley for proposing it, an you got the response you deserved.

[PoliticAverse]

22. The proposed amendment is too simple, it doesn't explicitly prohibit ID cards being required. n/t

[bigtree]

24. true, but it would provide a reasonably workable base for court challenges

from Americablog;

Establishing an affirmative right to vote would make these kinds of dog-whistle voting restrictions as unconstitutional as explicitly racist ones, and then some. With a constitutional right to vote, any law restricting ballot access would have to be shown as having a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional — even if it affected members of every demographic group equally.

(of course) there’s still reason to be skeptical of the proposal’s effect on our political system:

Any constitutional right to vote will still be subject to the interpretation and discretion of the Supreme Court. There’s a solid case to be made that voter ID laws, voter registration restrictions and any number of the other Republican electoral reforms violate the constitution already. If (and probably when) those laws make it to the Supreme Court, it will likely not make much of a difference whether they interpret them in the context of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, or if they interpret them in the context of a new, affirmative right to vote amendment. They could still write an opinion that “rests on air.”

However, I’m not sure that’s a legitimate reason to back down on the basic premise that the current right to vote as outlined in the Constitution is weaker than it should be. Just because the Courts can make a bad call doesn’t mean we shouldn’t establish a stronger reference point on which we can argue that their call was bad. As noted above, an affirmative right to vote doesn’t nix voter ID laws because they’re racially discriminatory; it nixes voter ID laws because the state can’t show that it has an interest in requiring an ID in order to vote. That’s a radically different legal framework, with no room for racially neutral language loopholes, that would make a Supreme Court decision upholding voter ID laws much more wrong than it would be under the current one.

read: http://americablog.com/2015/08/martin-omalley-voting-rights-amendment.html

[PoliticAverse]

26. The "compelling state interest" argument is already being used in favor of voter ID

so if you want to make sure certain things (like Voter ID being required) are eliminated
why not just specifically list them in the amendment?

[bigtree]

28. you make a good argument

...something to consider.