Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for posting this. I made the same argument (0+ / 0-)

    s to teacherken but didn't have the time to research the caselaw.  I completely agree the scheme seems to violation e/p both in intent and effect.

    Query: you considered the effect of the language in A.14 Sec. 2 which imo establishes (recognizes really but that's another argument) "the right to vote... [for] electors for" P/VP ?

    •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

      That language just says that if 21 year old males are not given the right to vote, then states lose population for purposes of allocating Representatives, based on the amount of disenfranchised voters.  

      •  Ah but that's the remedy for denying vote for (0+ / 0-)

        inter alia Electors for P/VP by its express terms.  

        Hard to have a constitutional remedy for a violation if you don't have a constitution right.  IOW, the fact that there's a remedy is pretty strong evidence the 14th A Framers saw and intended each person* has a right to vote for all federal offices, regardless of what State's did (could do by the pre-Civil War Constitution's terms, i.e., Art. 2, sec. 1, cl.2), no?

        U have to remember, the idea here was to ensure the Confederacy state's did not suddenly reverse the Civil War result by seziing the federal gov thru elections for federal offices in which newly freed blacks were disenfranchised.
        * BTW, the 'men' language is anachronistic and modified to persons over 18 by Amends. 19,  23 & 26, which of course post-date it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site