In the wake of the presidential election, there's been a lot of commentary on both the left and the right about what the results say about the American electorate, and what it means for the future. Much of the commentary has revolved around the simple concept of voting, the right of each citizen to express his or her opinion, which is one of the bedrock principles of our democracy.
Our cherished right to vote is now a political football, with most Republicans advocating more limits and most Democrats favoring more rights. The Constitution, surprisingly enough, says almost nothing about voting, most of the discussion of voting rights taking place in the
amendments, most importantly:
- The 14th Amendment, which sets the right to vote to "male citizens 21 years of age" (changed by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment);
- The 15th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of "color, race, or previous condition of servitude;"
- The 19th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote "on account of sex;"
- The 24th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote "by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax;" and,
- The 26th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote to citizens over 18 "on account of age."
I think no one would credibly argue that every eligible US citizen has the right to vote in federal or state elections, and that laws which "deny or abridge" their freedom to do so are unconstitutional.
They have the right to vote ... but should they?
I've been pondering this heretical question since Der Furor's return to power in the 2024 general election, for several reasons.
One reason is based on personal experience. I work as a precinct-level Election Officer (EO) here in Virginia, and as such I'm sworn to uphold all federal and state election laws. In this month's election, another EO and I were trying to register* a US citizen couple who were Vietnamese and spoke only minimal English. Usually, this is not an issue, as our ballots and related voting materials are printed in multiple languages (English, Spanish, Korean, and Vietnamese - the major languages in our county); however, these people were completely unable to understand either the voter registration forms or their provisional ballots. We had to scramble to find a Vietnamese interpreter approved by the Department of Elections and get him on the phone to help these people understand what they were doing. They eventually cast their provisional ballots.
Here's the issue: as US citizen residents of Virginia over the age of 18 and not previously convicted of a felony, these people met every legal qualification to vote. But, given that they were unable to understand either their voter registration forms or their ballots without serious linguistic assistance, should they have voted? Did they fully understand what they were signing and what the implications were? Were they ready to exercise not just their right to vote, but their (implied) duty to understand what they were voting for? Sadly, I don't think they were.
Here's another, related issue: since the election there have been voluminous reports in the news media featuring voters who were utterly uninformed about the major issues surrounding the election, in particular the state of the economy and the effect on it of each party's proposals. For instance, many voters interviewed did not know what a "tariff" is, who pays for it, and how it might affect the US economy. There was also a profound ignorance of Constitution and the structure and function of government**, as well as the US role in the international community. As US citizens over the age of 18, these people were perfectly eligible to vote. But given this lack of understanding - particularly on the structure and powers of their own government - should they have voted?
So, here's my dilemma: I absolutely believe that every US citizen has both a right and a duty to vote. Each of us depends on the smooth operation of our government and the capabilities and integrity of the individuals we elect to represent our interests. But do voters make rational decisions when they don't understand the issues? When they don't speak English - or whatever language*** - well enough to understand not just issues, but implications? When they base their votes on simple bumper-sticker arguments free of context and nuance? When they lack the education or knowledge to evaluate the potential outcomes of the votes they cast?
I think the time has come not for limits on the absolute right to vote, but on the requirements we should consider implementing to ensure that prospective voters are ready to responsibly exercise their right. Here are some of the requirements I'd like to see ...
-
A test of basic citizenship knowledge. A 2018 survey showed that
two-thirds of native-born American citizens can't pass the 10-question citizenship test given to those seeking to become US citizens ... they don't understand our history, how our government is organized, or other facts one might expect the averagely-informed citizen to know. In part, this is because we no longer emphasize the teaching of history or basic civics in schools†. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a voter who is a native-born US citizen to demonstrate the same level of basic knowledge about the nation, its government, and its history that we expect of those applying for citizenship.
- A current events test. This doesn't need to be a deep-dive into the minutiae of the news††, but rather a simple test to reveal whether or not a prospective voter is at least passingly aware of events in the world and how his or her vote might affect them.
- I'd also like to see a basic literacy test - available not just in English, but in one of the other languages most commonly spoken in this country (generally Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Chinese), but that's probably a political and social bridge too far, given our past experience with the use of literacy tests as a voter suppression tool and the damage done over the years to our public education system. I'm not quite sure how such a test would need to be designed, but it should at least indicate that the person can understand what he or she is voting for†††.
I understand that this suggestion will generate howls of outrage from both ends of the spectrum. Democrats/liberals/progressives will rage about new methods of
voter suppression that will deny the vote to (mostly) black or underprivileged citizens. Republicans/conservatives/MAGAts will argue that it doesn't go far enough to "purify" voter rolls.
I think we need not just to insist on our rights, but to make sure we're able to intelligently exercise them. There's more to our rights, our government, and our role in the world than noisy defense of the Second Amendment.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Have a good day. Enjoy both your rights and your responsibilities to the country that guarantees them. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
** A shortcoming also found in some elected members of Congress.
† Largely because of disagreements on how our history should be presented ("cleaned up" or "warts and all") and what the actual meaning of the Constitution is (consider the current scrum over the separation of church and state).
†† It's foolish to ask a question like "Who is the current prime minister of Zamboanga?," but it's certainly appropriate to ask a question like, "Name two major US trading partners," "who are your sitting Senators and your Representative?," or "name at least one country outside the United States where US troops are stationed."
††† Unfortunately, given that a lot of the things that we're asked to vote on (like bond issues or constitutional amendments) are written in convoluted legal language, I'm not sure that the best-intentioned of linguistic experts will be able to design an appropriate test.
.jpg)
.jpg)
