This Long-Lost Constitutional Clause Could Save the Right to Vote

[kentuck]

It’s time to start enforcing Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.thenation.com/article/195705/any-way-abridged?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


<snip>
With the exception of the early 1960s, the right to vote in the United States is arguably more embattled today than at any time since Reconstruction. In a quick succession of rulings in October, voter-ID laws, residency requirements, and the curtailment of early voting hours and same-day registration were upheld or overturned in states across the country. The Supreme Court permitted restrictions in some states for the midterm elections and prohibited them in others, but it refused to rule on the merits of the laws.

Amid the turmoil, voting-rights advocates cheered every small victory, however local or tenuous, and rued the many losses. The movement is still staggering from the body blow of Shelby County v. Holder (2013), in which the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the formula that determined which state and local governments had to submit proposed election-law changes to the federal government for advance approval.

The strategy at this point is still unclear. Some favor a constitutional amendment explicitly granting the right to vote. Others support the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which would repair the damage inflicted by Shelby County and create additional protections. Both are worthy initiatives, necessary components of a strategy to protect and expand the right to vote.

But an important tool remains unused, all but forgotten in a dark and dusty corner of the shed. Dating back to Reconstruction, it has the great merit of being already enshrined in the Constitution. According to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any state that denies or abridges the right to vote for any reason must have its congressional representation reduced in proportion to the number of citizens it disenfranchises. Arguably the most radical clause in the Constitution, it was designed to remake the government and the country. It has never been enforced.

....more

[Kablooie]

1. I've never heard of this before but it's there in the Constitution.

This should have been part of the discussion all along.

One caveat, it is specifically limited to males.
Any females who's voting rights are denied won't count unless the wording is amended.
This may be the reason it hasn't been more prominent in discussions of voting rights up to now.

[hobbit709]

5. I can see where the 19th amendment would supersede the male only part.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. True, by any reasonable reading of law

but we are talking about the Scalia 5.

[aggiesal]

11. Must fear Scalia Law not Sharia Law n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. Oh now that would make a great caption for a political cartoon...

on the no go zone meme. Wish I could draw!

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

37. Thank you so much for that.

I was trying hard to name the American version of Sharia law with no success. That is so perfect. Consider it stolen.

[aggiesal]

50. No problem ...

considered stolen.
You should bumper sticker it.

[H2O Man]

45. Awesome!

[SummerSnow]

2. wow, didn't know about this

[Thinkingabout]

3. I would hope all would vote, it is a right I do not take lightly. It does not matter if it

Appears to be trivia or not I still vote.

[Scuba]

4. Good read, good history lesson and, perhaps, a lever to use against those working to stifle voting.

[Enthusiast]

7. I wish this could happen.

[Indydem]

8. So who enforces this? The courts? The congress?

In the case of Texas, used in the article, who gets to determine WHICH of their 36 representatives they lose? Congress? The courts? Do they have to redistrict?

Does the seat get redistributed along population lines, or does it just sit vacant, waiting for Texas to clean up their act?

This whole fucking thing is so God damn stupid.

If you don't like voting ID laws, start working to make them obsolete. Bitching and complaining about something that is gaining more support, not less, is useless. Establish funds, machinery, and methods that every "disenfranchised" voter can get their documents, get an ID and get to vote.

If we, as Democrats, spent half as much time and energy on helping those who need help, instead of trying to stop these popular laws, we'd solve the problem and gain support.

[kentuck]

9. Who enforces this?

Good question.

But it would be nice to see a ruling upon it, in my opinion. Perhaps some justices have already spoken on the subject?

[alfredo]

15. Since the voting age has been lowered to 18, does that affect section 2?

[Historic NY]

23. I'm thinking its enforceable by the Federal Government...

since its the state that is disenfranchising the voter in election for President - VP- congress... etc,. I would think the Attorney General would be empowered by the Executive Branch to enforce it. It would be Federal gerrymandering of districts reducing the representatives by the Justice Dept.

[kentuck]

25. That's an interesting idea!

Since it has never been tried by an executive or ruled on by the Supreme Court. Matters such as an addition of females with guaranteed rights and a change in the voting age would only change that Section II with superseded laws that would in no way change the meaning or the letter of the law, in my opinion. The Executive would have the power to roll back the number of seats gained by gerrymandering according to the 14th Amendment, Section II.

[Historic NY]

27. Reduce the number of Rep. for the number of disenfranchised voters...

It happens routinely now when the number of a states residents are decreased. Usually its by population but my understanding this would go for those that are allowed to vote according to sec. 2. .

[world wide wally]

10. Great find. But as far as who determines who loses representatives goes,

I am betting that Republican legislators would make sure that Dems are eliminated in Republican controlled states.

[aggiesal]

12. Shhhhh! Don't give them any ideas n/t

[Kablooie]

24. If this allows Reps to eliminate Dems we could see a lot more voter discrimination.

A great tool for Republicans.
Decrease Democratic votes and eliminate Democrats who win at the same time!
Fantastic!

[kentuck]

26. They are doing that already, aren't they?

Didn't Democrats get about 2 million more votes in Congressional elections in the last election and still lost seats?

[world wide wally]

31. That is the travesty of our system. Not exactly a democracy, is it?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. God, not this again n/t

[kentuck]

44. ????

What do you mean?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. I mean that national vote counts don't mean shit in Congressional elections

A Democrat that wins his or her seat by 50,000 votes in CA has nothing to do with a Democrat that loses a seat by 2,000 votes in GA.

It doesn't matter one whit what the national vote count is with regards to individual House seats, nor should it. Unless the goal is to count all the votes, then install someone from the national party winner in all 435 Congressional seats.

THAT would be a mockery of democracy.

[JoeOtterbein]

13. Section 2 text

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[aspirant]

21. "or other crime"

Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Were these defined any further. "In rebellion" suggests treason "or in any way abridged" would include any and all voter suppression laws.

There are 7 million in the Croosscheck voter list that 27 states are using.

Reduced representation wouldn't matter in most southern states because they are now so gerrymandered favoring the repubs that any seat reduced would have to affect them. You couldn't take 1 dem district and remove their representative leaving 700,000 people unrepresented. These people should be re-districted into neighboring repub districts diluting their numbers or is this a wrong interpretation?

[ChosenUnWisely]

14. We would be better off just letting the red states go and form their own nation.

It would be the best thing for everyone involved.

[world wide wally]

17. I agree. Our election process is far too weighted in the favor of smaller, less populated states

that have undue importance on the results.
Dems have received over twenty million more votes than Republicans over the past few elections and we are in the minority. What's wrong with this picture?

[ChosenUnWisely]

18. If one were to take a critical look at the positives and negitives of the red states

one would rapidly come to the conclusion that the negatives would out weight the positives.

We would be better off without them.

[former9thward]

19. What if the red states set up a no-fly zone?

Might make it tough on the West Coast.

[ChosenUnWisely]

20. Nope not at all, fly over Canada which when flying from the Northeast to the West Coast

is shorter.

Great circle Navigation and all that.

I have a feasible answer for every situation one could possible think of if the red states went and formed their own nation.

I have given this great thought too and came to the conclusion many years ago the red states provide no value whatsoever and are more trouble than they are worth.

[former9thward]

22. If it was shorter they would do it now.

They don't.

[ChosenUnWisely]

34. Yes they do, last time I flew to the West Coast we went over Canada.

[former9thward]

49. Most flights do not go over Canada.

But try again with your theories of how easy it would be.

[tkmorris]

33. Good luck enforcing it

[markmyword]

30. Here here!

I would love the red states to secede from the union and start their OWN country!

The blue states are progressive. A country made up of blue states would look like Europe.

We'd have universal health care, EQUAL PAY, abortion rights, no guns (hopefully), glass-seagal, breaking up of the to big to fail banks, government spending money for infrastructure, FREE college for everyone, Social Security expansion, labeling of GMO's, penalizing companies that have their money off shore, no more subsidising farmers, TAXING the wealthy, free child care, voting rights, investing in solar and wind power, taking care of our workers with good pensions, wages AND long vacation days.
The list goes on and on.

WHY do we have to FIGHT these CRAZY REPUBLICANS over EVERY issue. Let's cut them loose and see how how well they do on their own WITHOUT us NORTHERNERS/PROGRESSIVES supporting them.
These REPUBLICANS couldn't run a country, the only way they could survive would be to DECLARE WAR on everyone. The military complex would make a ton of money and their POOR, illiterate, religious populous, would be the foot soldiers sent off to war!
A new petition should be started to BREAK AMERICA up into TWO countries.

Since when do the sane NEGOIATE with the INSANE??? That's what we've been doing since 2000!!!

[ChosenUnWisely]

35. All the Eastern States North of the Potomac River and the West coast just secede

and join Canada as 2 new Provinces and over night Canada would become an economic powerhouse and military power in the world seeing that the NYSE and Hollywood would now be Canadian, Canada would also get a seat on the UN Security Council and the former USA seat would go away. If the blue states left the red states would turn into third world countries with unstable theocratic governments virtually overnight.

[olegramps]

38. How long would it take before Mexico reclaimed Texas? I love it.

I questioned why the North ever went to war against the South. If left to their own devices the South would have found itself in an internal war with slaves who would have been aided in their rebellion by Northern sympathizers. Many of the nations problems stem from the Civil War that was anything but civil.

[Old Codger]

16. This one is newer and better

Article. [XXVI.]
[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ooops it only covers age....sorry bout that

[DeSwiss]

28. K&R

- Well, okay I guess we could try it. But they always seem to ignore the ones they don't like anyways......

[elleng]

29. THIS!!!!!!

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

[erlewyne]

32. With gerrymandering this could help the GOP?

By eliminating seats with a high minority turnout? But then,
wouldn't those districts be absorbed by districts with low
minority turnout?
A can of worms! In Ohio Kucinich was eliminated by a
gerrymander.

Too deep for me ....

[raven mad]

39. I do so love that clause.................

Thank you for posting this!

"reduced in proportion to the number of citizens it disenfranchises." I know some states who would have NO representation at all!

[heaven05]

40. Time for theReal Democrats of

the Democratic Party to start enforcing. No excuses now.

[mmonk]

42. Would love to see it.

It would be like before 2010 again and I would have a chance at representation.

[KG]

43. seems that nobody that matters cares.

[Luminous Animal]

47. The populations of prison towns are artificially boosted in regards to voting.

The census counts prisoners and, even though they can't vote, the prison population is counted as eligible voters. This is a boon for many conservative rural districts.

As the Gerrymandering Project explains:

Our existing research allows us to specifically describe how prisons artificially boost the population of prison towns, about how that increases the weight of a prison-town vote, and how that dilutes the weight of a vote by the resident of an average district. For example, New York State Assembly District 114 is 7% prisoners, so the votes of 93 residents in that district carry the weight of 100 residents elsewhere in the state.

[imthevicar]

48. Just one more reason to

Force the House to increase the number of representatives to a constitutional level.
http://www.thirty-thousand.org

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Well we better start doing what we can....

because I think they will get rid of the filibuster...