Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One issue of note for the origination OP, which was well prepared otherwise, is that the original United States Constitution did not have race as a basis for voting, so the statement of only White voters is actually incorrect. In fact, the basis of voting was left to the States themselves. This is part of why the electoral college was very important. A State like New Jersey allowed women and minorities to vote, so long as the voters were otherwise "qualified", but that is up to the State to determine how its electoral votes would be cast. One State would not affect the other.
To the question at hand, this is pertinent and useful, because several States opted for different paths in establishing who should be included. Should voting be universal?
In terms of it being universal, it is useful to look to see what various outcomes did for the different States that tried it. Various States tried different schemes both before and after the Constitution. Some barred on the basis of sex and race, and the overwhelming result is that it caused this constituency to be harmed. Most also barred on the basis of Age, which seems to have not been challenged otherwise, but does not appear to have had any lasting distinguishment. Religion, or at least passing of a religious test, was used in some States, which seems to have both harmed the purpose of a given religion as well as caused for a lack of diversity of thought in those areas.
Other areas explored suffer from a lack of cohesion. Many States required the owning of land for a vote. The auspice being that a person with a vested stake in the area would vote better. Some States did not require property, but rather an estate value and/or a taxpaying status. Again geared towards the auspice that people with skin in the game ought to manage a public's money better than an uninvested class. Finally we have the educated vs the uneducated, if only there was some sort of agreement of what educational traits created better electors.
In nearly all instances, the lack of universality lead to a smaller government aimed at supporting the class to which elected it.
All of this would point to conclusion that opening the vote as wide as possible would be the best possible outcome for all citizenry to benefit from the Government. Still, this conclusion ignores the quality of governance.
When you look at the Founding Fathers and early leaders of the country, it is impossible to not notice the eloquence of writing used in explaining principles to be guided by. While populist policies certainly entered in all periods, the overriding themes of the day were guided by how to run functions expected of governments at the time. How will activity be funded. Areas of war. Areas of expansion. Federalist vs State jurisdictions. As the population of voters increased, the areas of lawmaking increased as well. It became next to impossible for a learned leader to care about all such activities, especially if they have little experience in them, and the lawmaking bodies formed committees and later bodies to help draft law. This in turn lead to ready to pass law being suggested by industries themselves. This further became actionable with the advent of the income tax withholding. Whereby Americans seemingly stopped noticing deductions as it was taken from them before they received it.
When looking at predominant themes in the government today, the landscape has become dominated by things once reserved for the jurisdiction of the individual. Child tax credits, tuition forbearance, government purchased mortgages, tuition reimbursement, health care access for individuals. The United States is hardly an outlier in this progression, but it risks the very nature of why a Republic was chosen over a Direct Democracy....at some point there is a station in which a government must limit its scope, and a way to do this is to limit the vote.
As we return to one area, that of children not being able to vote....if given capacity could not some strange laws be put into place promising free toys in every box of cereal or something equally rash, merely to attract these votes? If a mistake is made, do not these young souls have the most time to recover and overcome?
As such, the decision of suffrage again becomes complex. Is a Federal government that has truly overrun most State authority and now coming increasingly close to having a central aspect in the scope of an individual the ideal we hoped to achieve? I would argue it is not. It may seem beneficial in many situations, but it puts government to the impossible test of trying to please or deny people in too many areas....which in a sense presents a tyranny of the majority over the minority....just one not defined in a traditional sense.
What I cannot supply however, is an effective counterpoint on how a basis of determining an electorate should be determined. It would be helpful, so long as the basis is not determined along protected classes, for the States and local governments to find ways of experimenting with outcome and results, but gerrymandering alone gives sufficient reason to pause and possibly conclude that politicians are too cynically tied to allegiances to give this any means beyond a new game for cornering power.
So in cycnicism, rather than in principle, would I also agree that suffrage should be spread across all in the most free and fair way possible....allowing that the voting class is a citizen and is dutifully bound to honor the nation. Beyond that, there is no reason to overly force a vote by all. Citizens who have done no research on topics can then self elect to not cast an uneducated vote and trust that their neighbors will decide what is best.
I have yet to meet anyone on the left who wants illegal immigrants to vote, jtab4994. And I know a LOT of people on the left, most of them far further to the left than I am.
But I know, I know. Your news said it so it must be so. You should hear some of the things that the leftie news says about ya'll. I guess if you'll believe the worst of the left, you shouldn't be surprised when they do the same right back, eh?
I will never agree that voting should be difficult. OK, so some might think, "make it difficult" and in their minds they are thinking that this will eliminate those uneducated, poor, homeless, probably left voting city folks..."People on my side would crawl across broken glass!" OK, get rid of mail in ballots, as you say, but get rid of them all. Including those sent to old people. Hell, if they can't get to the polls, maybe they have dementia. Probably shouldn't be voting anyways if they can't stand in line for hours.
Soldiers overseas? Well. Maybe let their officers vote on their behalf. Surely they are more "educated."
Nah, it's not a game I'll play, not in any way shape or form. The fact is, when you have anybody putting up barriers to voting that make it harder, it is something that whichever side has the power over it, can and will use that to make it easier for their voters and harder for the opposition, which is not a democratic thing to do. And I want very much to continue to have a functioning democracy. I no more want the left to totally take over than I want the right to, I don't want and ultimate winner or loser side here. I want the right to have to actually compete with ideologies and policies that their voters WANT, not with gerrymandering and suppression, though.
Voter IDs... I believe that this Voting Rights bill has a provision for that. The problem with letting states decide on it is when you get situations such as: A hunting license counts, but a student ID doesn't. States can rule on what is and isn't a valid form of ID in non-uniform ways clearly intended to benefit one party. A situation where a person's name on their ID has to match their voter registration, back around 2012 in TX because who is specifically impacted most by this? Women, who get married and divorced and whose names change. So I don't oppose voter ID but I believe it must be universal and not implemented in a manner that gives anyone an unfair advantage.
Any time that a state legislature that is dominated by one party is able to make rules that can disproportionately prevent eligibility for many otherwise eligible voters of a certain group that they figure mostly votes for their opponent... I'm not comfortable with either party being able to game the system.
And if it can be proven that "my side" (though I don't do this team sports jersey bullcrap about politics, I am an Indie at heart) has rigged things or that actual fraud has occurred, then I'm willing to hear it. But so far I've seen lots of sizzle and no steak. Lots of accusations in front of cameras that crumple when the accuser is under oath in a courtroom. If you can't speak your truth when there are consequences for lying, then do not waste my time.
I do want more voting. I'd love to see something like the Australians have. Ranked choice sounds interesting. It's a national holiday, there are food trucks outside, and it's "mandatory" though all that means is that you get a small fine if you don't vote. And voters who don't want to cast an actual vote are allowed to simply spoil their ballots, draw something silly on it if they like, the mandatory part is really just casting a ballot in your name of some sort.
Oh and by the by. The right is not the only side that is motivated to vote. I have seen in this thread, a lot of sentiment that flows like, "Well, I think most people are like me..." <they aren't> "Well...the people who count and who have genuine motivation to vote are like me..." <code for:> "Well...the only people who count are the ones like me, and if we could make it so that they're the only ones who can vote...and I think that if anyone disagrees with me, they must be an illegal immigrant or stupid or something..." <yeah, sorry, that's your bias talking, and it's hardly a "highly intelligent and superior educated" position to take.>
I just wish that you could see something. I keep saying this, Americans are being shoved in opposite directions on purpose and it frustrates me that too many are not seeing through the game. Saying, "Wait a damn minute, these are my fellow countrymen and women, these are my neighbors..." But we have these notions on the left that it's "uneducated hillbillies" who vote right, and those on the right who think that it's "uneducated urban poor" if you will, people of color anyways, who vote left...a whole bunch of "those stupid people" judgments with the only significant difference really, being skin color and the urban/rural divide... It's nasty. Can't you see how nasty and false it is?
If anyone, any eligible US citizen voter, wanted to vote and could not for instance get transport to the polls, even if I knew for a fact that they were going to vote for someone I hated, I would do it, I'd take them. They have a right to be heard and I'd die on that hill.
One issue of note for the origination OP, which was well prepared otherwise, is that the original United States Constitution did not have race as a basis for voting, so the statement of only White voters is actually incorrect. In fact, the basis of voting was left to the States themselves. This is part of why the electoral college was very important. A State like New Jersey allowed women and minorities to vote, so long as the voters were otherwise "qualified", but that is up to the State to determine how its electoral votes would be cast. One State would not affect the other.
I didn't know about NJ, but my impression is that Wyoming, as a territory, was the first that had systematic female voting. Voting until the 1880's at least was often "viva voce" or voice voting anyway, and the issue of who was canvassing and how would be interesting to determine. It would probably make Bush v. Gore, and some of the modern vote challenges look like a "walk in the park."
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
To the question at hand, this is pertinent and useful, because several States opted for different paths in establishing who should be included. Should voting be universal?
In terms of it being universal, it is useful to look to see what various outcomes did for the different States that tried it. Various States tried different schemes both before and after the Constitution. Some barred on the basis of sex and race, and the overwhelming result is that it caused this constituency to be harmed. Most also barred on the basis of Age, which seems to have not been challenged otherwise, but does not appear to have had any lasting distinguishment. Religion, or at least passing of a religious test, was used in some States, which seems to have both harmed the purpose of a given religion as well as caused for a lack of diversity of thought in those areas.
Other areas explored suffer from a lack of cohesion. Many States required the owning of land for a vote. The auspice being that a person with a vested stake in the area would vote better. Some States did not require property, but rather an estate value and/or a taxpaying status. Again geared towards the auspice that people with skin in the game ought to manage a public's money better than an uninvested class. Finally we have the educated vs the uneducated, if only there was some sort of agreement of what educational traits created better electors.
In nearly all instances, the lack of universality lead to a smaller government aimed at supporting the class to which elected it. All of this would point to conclusion that opening the vote as wide as possible would be the best possible outcome for all citizenry to benefit from the Government. Still, this conclusion ignores the quality of governance.
I admit that I don't have a manageable method of facilitating voting by those with "skin in the game" and otherwise not encouraging voting, but that is a worthy ideal. Perhaps the last sentence of your post, "(c)itizens who have done no research on topics can then self elect to not cast an uneducated vote and trust that their neighbors will decide what is best" provides some guidance. Perhaps, also, banning the recent practice of workers going to door-to-door or to places of assembly with ballots should be implemented. There is just too much temptation to pre-prepare ballots or pay people to vote a certain way. That may not make much of a difference in outcomes, but certainly these practices undermine public confidence in elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
When you look at the Founding Fathers and early leaders of the country, it is impossible to not notice the eloquence of writing used in explaining principles to be guided by. While populist policies certainly entered in all periods, the overriding themes of the day were guided by how to run functions expected of governments at the time. How will activity be funded. Areas of war. Areas of expansion. Federalist vs State jurisdictions. As the population of voters increased, the areas of lawmaking increased as well. It became next to impossible for a learned leader to care about all such activities, especially if they have little experience in them, and the lawmaking bodies formed committees and later bodies to help draft law. This in turn lead to ready to pass law being suggested by industries themselves. This further became actionable with the advent of the income tax withholding. Whereby Americans seemingly stopped noticing deductions as it was taken from them before they received it.
When looking at predominant themes in the government today, the landscape has become dominated by things once reserved for the jurisdiction of the individual. Child tax credits, tuition forbearance, government purchased mortgages, tuition reimbursement, health care access for individuals. The United States is hardly an outlier in this progression, but it risks the very nature of why a Republic was chosen over a Direct Democracy....at some point there is a station in which a government must limit its scope, and a way to do this is to limit the vote.
Unfortunately the impetus for a lot of these, especially the bolded, was to compensate soldiers who served in WW II and Korea. While WW I had conscription the duration was short. As for Civil War conscription, people who could afford educations could buy their way out of it. The WW II government did not have the money to really pay soldiers both for combat and to provide recompense for the time lost to career development. The GI Bill was well-intentioned by there was little time to "tuss out" the minutia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
As we return to one area, that of children not being able to vote....if given capacity could not some strange laws be put into place promising free toys in every box of cereal or something equally rash, merely to attract these votes? If a mistake is made, do not these young souls have the most time to recover and overcome?
As a lawyer this is somewhat easier than you would think. There are numerous activities which restricted on grounds of youth:
Liability for and ability to contract and incur debt;
Ability to marry;
Ability to have sexual relations (in some cases a restriction of age differences);
Tolling of statutes of limitations based on age (some statutes regulating ability to sue are tolled so they don't start running until majority and even when they do start running are for an abbreviated period); and
Ability to take certain jobs or enter military service.
There are others, but the courts do not regard age nearly as much as a suspect classification as race or gender. After all you grow out of youth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
As such, the decision of suffrage again becomes complex. Is a Federal government that has truly overrun most State authority and now coming increasingly close to having a central aspect in the scope of an individual the ideal we hoped to achieve? I would argue it is not. It may seem beneficial in many situations, but it puts government to the impossible test of trying to please or deny people in too many areas....which in a sense presents a tyranny of the majority over the minority....just one not defined in a traditional sense.
Part of the "overrun" is unavoidable. The country, for example, needs interstate transportation. Should states have to bribe their neighbors so that, for example, I-95 isn't about twelve separate segments? Even the missing gaps now have paved-limited access connections with different numbering. One isn't forced at each state line to detour to dirt roads or through local streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
What I cannot supply however, is an effective counterpoint on how a basis of determining an electorate should be determined. It would be helpful, so long as the basis is not determined along protected classes, for the States and local governments to find ways of experimenting with outcome and results, but gerrymandering alone gives sufficient reason to pause and possibly conclude that politicians are too cynically tied to allegiances to give this any means beyond a new game for cornering power.
So in cycnicism, rather than in principle, would I also agree that suffrage should be spread across all in the most free and fair way possible....allowing that the voting class is a citizen and is dutifully bound to honor the nation. Beyond that, there is no reason to overly force a vote by all. Citizens who have done no research on topics can then self elect to not cast an uneducated vote and trust that their neighbors will decide what is best.
I think I discussed that above. I don't have an answer either, part of why I started this GD thread.
I have yet to meet anyone on the left who wants illegal immigrants to vote, jtab4994. And I know a LOT of people on the left, most of them far further to the left than I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
As of a few days ago, New York City actually allows non-citizens to vote.
Oh, Mr. Lawyer jbgusa, you should know better than to fling out an inflammatory statement like that without qualification or explanation, as your response to another debate participant's statement that "I have yet to meet anyone on the left who wants illegal immigrants to vote."
I will do it for you: ONLY legal, permanent city residents may vote in municipal elections. They are barred from voting in Presidential elections. Additionally, New York City is not the first city to permit legal, permanent residents the right to vote in local elections. There are currently fifteen municipalities within other states in the country that allow legal, permanent residents of those cities to vote in local elections. Additionally, there are fourteen states in the country that do not have constitutional restrictions preventing individual cities within their states from passing similar laws permitting legal, permanent city residents the right to vote on local issues that directly affect them. As noted by Joshua A. Douglas, associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law: "Municipalities can expand voting rights in local elections if there are no explicit state constitutional or legislative impediments and so long as local jurisdictions have the power of home rule."
You should not be conflating the term "illegal immigrants" with those who are legally here in this country and making contributions to this country. Not all immigrants are here illegally.
Regardless of immigrants' legal or illegal status, Federal law still prevents all non-citizens throughout the country from voting in our national elections, and individual State constitutions prevent the same from voting in State-wide elections. Federal law will fine, imprison, or deport any non-citizen, regardless of residency status, who attempts to violate the law against voting in a national election.
Edited to add: I see that you've deleted that statement you made, jbgusa, in response to Sonic_Spork's statement on false accusations of supporting voting rights for illegal immigrants. I wish you well in your further research on the subject.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 01-20-2022 at 05:42 AM..
Oh, Mr. Lawyer jbgusa, you should know better than to fling out an inflammatory statement like that without qualification or explanation, as your response to another debate participant's statement that "I have yet to meet anyone on the left who wants illegal immigrants to vote."
I will do it for you: ONLY legal, permanent city residents may vote in municipal elections. They are barred from voting in Presidential elections. Additionally, New York City is not the first city to permit legal, permanent residents the right to vote in local elections. There are currently fifteen municipalities within other states in the country that allow legal, permanent residents of those cities to vote in local elections. Additionally, there are fourteen states in the country that do not have constitutional restrictions preventing individual cities within their states from passing similar laws permitting legal, permanent city residents the right to vote on local issues that directly affect them. As noted by Joshua A. Douglas, associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law: "Municipalities can expand voting rights in local elections if there are no explicit state constitutional or legislative impediments and so long as local jurisdictions have the power of home rule."
You should not be conflating the term "illegal immigrants" with those who are legally here in this country and making contributions to this country. Not all immigrants are here illegally.
Regardless of immigrants' legal or illegal status, Federal law still prevents all non-citizens throughout the country from voting in our national elections, and individual State constitutions prevent the same from voting in State-wide elections. Federal law will fine, imprison, or deport any non-citizen, regardless of residency status, who attempts to violate the law against voting in a national election.
Edited to add: I see that you've deleted that statement you made, jbgusa, in response to Sonic_Spork's statement on false accusations of supporting voting rights for illegal immigrants. I wish you well in your further research on the subject.
I did edit. And frankly I believe that immigrants, legal and illegal help make this a great country. I don't know how legal one of my sets of great-grandparents were; their trek to this country was Ukraine-Halifax-Montreal and then Grand Central Terminal via train. I somehow doubt that they had an Elli Island-like setup at Grand Central. As long as immigrants come in to work, building themselves and the country I'm fine with it. Benefits (other than free education for children and vaccinations) and voting are another matter.
The last sentence, since deleted, of my post was a mistake. While I cannot find the text of the bill I found the City Council's press release (link). Here are the relevant portions of the press release (public domain, not copyrighted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York City Council Press Release
City Hall, NY – New York City is proudly home to millions of working, taxpaying immigrants, yet those who are not U.S. citizens have no power at the ballot box to determine who represents them. The Council today will vote on historic legislation to give eligible non-citizen New Yorkers the right to vote in local elections. Under this bill, any New Yorker who is a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States, who has been a resident of New York City for at least 30 consecutive days, and who meets all the qualifications for registering to vote under the Election Law other than U.S. citizenship, would be eligible to register to vote as a “municipal voter.†Registered municipal voters would be entitled to vote in any primary, special, general, or run-off election for Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, Borough President, or Council Member, as well as on any local ballot initiative. The Board of Elections would implement this new system, which would include developing a new registration form specifically for municipal voters and giving them the opportunity to enroll in a political party so they can vote in local primary elections. Under this bill, eligible non-citizens would be able to start registering to vote on December 9, 2022, and once registered, could begin voting in local elections as of January 9, 2023. The bill would also create an advisory group to provide recommendations regarding the implementation of this new municipal voting system.
Must Voting (as opposed to Suffrage) Be More or Less Universal?
No. It should be left up to each state, just as it is now.
I would feel differently if we elected Presidents with a popular vote, but that's not how it works. Each state selects their choice in their own manner.
I have yet to meet anyone on the left who wants illegal immigrants to vote, jtab4994. And I know a LOT of people on the left, most of them far further to the left than I am.
Most people, especially politicians, are scrupulous about "officially" being against illegal immigration and against illegal immigrants voting. But then they declare themselves a Sanctuary City and bar local government agencies from supporting federal immigration laws. Forgive me if I have extrapolated from that, that some of those people are also in favor of illegal immigrants voting.
And even though NYC and others have specific language that only allows legal residents to vote in municipal elections, many other municipalities don't. In many jurisdictions the language is quite loose, like "Any person over the age of 18 who has been a resident of Cheverly (MD) for at least 30 days at the time of the election and has not been convicted of a crime is eligible to register to vote in town elections". https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitt...s#cite_note-12
The point I was trying to make is there is a tendency among some to want illegal immigrants to vote, not that it's a rampant problem. A 1996 Gingrich-Clinton law explicitly prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for federal office, and that law is unlikely to be overturned soon. So we have that going for us.
Quote:
I will never agree that voting should be difficult.
I guess at this point you're not replying to me anymore, because I never said anything about making voting difficult. I think it's pretty easy as it is, at least in Pennsylvania and New Jersey where I'm familiar with the process.
FWIW I helped my elderly working class parents vote by mail in New Jersey during the last years of their lives. Voting had always been important to them and it seemed like the least I could do. And it was fairly simple to apply for the ballots, too. I'm not against people voting by mail, I'm just against ballots being blasted out unsolicited. Requiring a modicum of pro-activity from people is not a lot to ask.
I didn't know about NJ, but my impression is that Wyoming, as a territory, was the first that had systematic female voting. Voting until the 1880's at least was often "viva voce" or voice voting anyway, and the issue of who was canvassing and how would be interesting to determine. It would probably make Bush v. Gore, and some of the modern vote challenges look like a "walk in the park."
New Jersey's initial voting was based upon having lived there for at least 12 months and having an estate worth 50 pounds....remembering of course that the fledgling dollar was still a new entrant. The thought appears to be that each established residence in good standing would have a right to vote, but only a single one. If a couple were married, then the right to vote the household would go to the husband.
I believe the early thoughts were concerned mostly that votes would be forced otherwise. A husband could force his wife to vote a certain way, and could also coerce slaves to vote a certain way and or minor people just starting out that were attached to the household. It's worth mentioning that in colonial times, while the south was a big importer of slaves from Africa, the northern households also imported labor in the manner of indentured servants from Europe. To the forefathers, it would have made sense that each established estate should be given an equal vote, and not allow one estate to increase their ability to influence the vote merely by taking on more individuals that were in some capacity of servitude to an estate master.
In reality this follows a predominance seen in early times. If you consider the technological limitations of the day, the government's funding sources were limited. At one point, the Federal government's main source of funding was the sale of stamps and the US postal service. It may seem astonishing considering the USPS now hangs like an albatross upon the Federal finances. Excise taxes and tarriffs were established as well, but the main method for taxation at the individual level was property tax. Property, after all, did not move around so much and there was a need to keep accurate records of who owned what parcel of land anyway.
And while there were similarities amongst the States, there wasn't an agreement. Hence the Electoral College would be reconvened each 10 years and the total votes awarded to each State would be that each State would receive 2 regardless and then at least 1 or more depending on the population of the State, but slaves would only be worth 3/5 a person....for the purpose of allocating State votes. From there each State could make up its own rules, and these rules changed over time. After all, residency is what was important to the States...it was a new country after all. Yet especially in the ports of entry, people didn't like the idea that their household and area they'd been building out could easily get outvoted by a boatload of literal fresh of the boat immigrants who could easily be swayed and lead to vote in certain ways....perhaps for a round of drinks....and then continue on to wherever their final destination was....voting at each polling station along the way.
It's poignant here today. If California wants to adopt a measure that gives the vote to permanent residents, for example....that is at the State level to determine this so long as it does not run afoul of the age, sex, race and prior conditions of servitude. California just has to accept that it will receive no additional electoral votes for the State.
The servitude piece is what allows prisoners to not be allowed the vote as opposed to their crime. Whether this is in place for fear a political jailer will force votes a certain way or because it seems a fitting punishment for a law breaker to not have a voice in determining laws, there is still a want to disallow forced voting or voting that can be unduly influenced.
Where things began to get gamed was that established families didn't want their influence taken away by a wave of people coming to an area and electing what was called a carpet bag leader. Someone who had no ties to the area and didn't care about actually representing the area, but rather to seek the power of the office they were running for. As the frontier evaporated and urbanization continued, each family having their own household became much less of a reality for the once pastoral country. And the games of north soon became known as city bosses emerged in most of the major cities, each gaming the system to their own advantage. Post civil war, in the defeated South, plantation politics was turned upside down as newly freed slaves, which by law had not been allowed education and had been treated badly in many cases, now were free to enact law. Further, the political party of Lincoln put many Reconstruction candidates into office of the defeated area causing consternation amongst the area's former elite. Here the most draconian laws were developed. They may cite a want for education, but how many of us could go to a poll office and answer who was the 3rd Vice President of the United States. Still, if that was an important aspect, it may have been admissable, but it was often partnered with and OR caveat. Pass our history test OR let it be known your grandfather was allowed the vote and you shall have it as well. The de facto effect was to not allow members of a particular race to vote....not that the votes cast were cast by only educated electors.
Which is where some of the earlier focuses on limiting the electorate become marred. A truly educated electorate may indeed be better for the country on the whole, but what is to stop that caveat from not being universal....and of course, does knowing who the 3rd VPOTUS actually make for better decisions.
The framework still stands though. It's simply become sancrosat that anyone above age of 18 will have the right to vote. For a State to attempt to limit that now would likely be politically impossible, even if a better way was thought to be found.
Unfortunately the impetus for a lot of these, especially the bolded, was to compensate soldiers who served in WW II and Korea. While WW I had conscription the duration was short. As for Civil War conscription, people who could afford educations could buy their way out of it. The WW II government did not have the money to really pay soldiers both for combat and to provide recompense for the time lost to career development. The GI Bill was well-intentioned by there was little time to "tuss out" the minutia.
As a lawyer this is somewhat easier than you would think. There are numerous activities which restricted on grounds of youth:
Liability for and ability to contract and incur debt;
Ability to marry;
Ability to have sexual relations (in some cases a restriction of age differences);
Tolling of statutes of limitations based on age (some statutes regulating ability to sue are tolled so they don't start running until majority and even when they do start running are for an abbreviated period); and
Ability to take certain jobs or enter military service.
There are others, but the courts do not regard age nearly as much as a suspect classification as race or gender. After all you grow out of youth.
Part of the "overrun" is unavoidable. The country, for example, needs interstate transportation. Should states have to bribe their neighbors so that, for example, I-95 isn't about twelve separate segments? Even the missing gaps now have paved-limited access connections with different numbering. One isn't forced at each state line to detour to dirt roads or through local streets.
I think I discussed that above. I don't have an answer either, part of why I started this GD thread.
I'm not sure I understand the soldier benefits exactly, but I would agree that minors have no consent to contract to land, and thus in the early days would have no ability to be a head of household and as such, the voter of the estate. The last segment though really is what would have been debated at some point. What should be handled at the Federal vs State level (The interstates are Federal highways). One of the early topics was the matter of interstate commerce, wherby States would not be allowed to tax one another. This was an initial sticking point in the South as the cheaper equipment they needed could be found by importing it from Europe as opposed to the then smaller industrial base largely found in the Northeast. To make the equipment better priced, the country brought up tariffs on imported goods, which helped the Northeast, but hurt the South.
This is what campaigns were about however. National and State issues. Should we raise a military (recalling the original country did not want a standing military)...if you are interested, I would highly advise people to try and find older American history books and read them. They read more story like than today's fragmented 500 page collections of anecdotes my child brings home. If you get a couple you will start to get a great sense for what was happening in the country at the time.
And even though NYC and others have specific language that only allows legal residents to vote in municipal elections, many other municipalities don't. In many jurisdictions the language is quite loose, like "Any person over the age of 18 who has been a resident of Cheverly (MD) for at least 30 days at the time of the election and has not been convicted of a crime is eligible to register to vote in town elections". https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitt...s#cite_note-12
The language may seem "quite loose" to you from your readings online but, I assure you, if you were to download the voter registration form from the websites of any of these municipalities, you will find that they define what they mean by "resident" and they stipulate the requirements for residency.
I have just now downloaded the voter registration form for Chevy Chase, Maryland, and it clearly states that a resident must "Be legally authorized to reside in the United States."
Edited to add: Hold on. I just telephoned the Town Hall for Cheverly, Maryland (sorry I misread your post to think you were talking about Chevy Chase, Maryland) because I couldn't find a download for their voter registration form, and I discovered that you were right in that instance. Cheverly is in Prince George's County in Maryland and not only Cheverly, but three other cities in that county permit non-citizens, regardless of status, to vote in local elections.
Speaking for myself, I think that anyone who is in this country illegally is clearly breaking the law and should not have the right to vote on any of our laws or in any of our elections, whether that be city, state, or federal.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 01-20-2022 at 09:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
