Search results

Richard Briffault reviews The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States by Alexander Keyssar. Briffault argues: "Although Keyssar's book is titled The Right to Vote, both his history and current legal doctrine raise questions about whether and to what extent voting is a right at all. Initially, as Keyssar demonstrates, voting was not seen as a right, but as a privilege to be provided to those thought best qualified to participate in governing the community. Even as the franchise was expanded, the vote continued to retain something of its foundation in government-bestowed privilege. Today, the vote comes closer to being a right of all members of the political community. Yet, as I will suggest in Part III, voting's status as a right is still contested. Some groups remain unenfranchised. There is no right to have decisions made by popular vote. Most importantly, even where voting is provided, a wide variety of political considerations and institutions - federalism, legislative districting, ballot access rules, the costs of administration, campaign finance law - operate to constrain voters' choices. Government still gets to shape the role of voting in the political system even if it has less control over who gets to vote. The significance of popular voting in our political process remains a matter of politics as much as it is a matter of rights."

Election is the pivotal ingredient to the democratic process which allows various political actors to compete over choices and issues. Therefore the success of the democracy mainly depends on the level of electoral system and participate of citizens in the politics. Not only this the right to vote and the exercise of this franchise by eligible citizens is the pulse of every democracy. Therefore in this paper an attempt has been made to understand how the democracy works in India, importances of citizens participation in the politics and also to analyze the concept of right to vote, its origin and developments at international and national level and to understand the object of introducing concept of "None of the above" (NOTA) and other related aspects relating to citizens participation in politics.

Election is the pivotal ingredient to the democratic process which allows various political actors to compete over choices and issues. Therefore the success of the democracy mainly depends on the level of electoral system and participate of citizens in the politics. Not only this the right to vote and the exercise of this franchise by eligible citizens is the pulse of every democracy. Therefore in this paper an attempt has been made to understand how the democracy works in India, importances of citizens participation in the politics and also to analyze the concept of right to vote, its origin and developments at international and national level and to understand the object of introducing concept of "None of the above" (NOTA) and other related aspects relating to citizens participation in politics.

The question raised in this paper is whether legal rights to vote are also moral rights to vote. The challenge to the justification of a moral right to vote is that it is not clear that the vote is instrumental to the preservation of some critical interest of the voter. Because a single vote has 'no impact' on electoral outcomes, the right to vote is unlikely to serve the interests of the individual. The account developed in this paper holds that moral voting rights can be justified once we acknowledge that voting by a sub-set of citizens is among the necessary preconditions for democratic institutions making a significant difference to their collective interests. The justification of a moral right to vote does not, then, apply to each individual citizen but only to a sub-set of them. In order to justify inclusive moral voting rights, the further consideration must be added that individuals have critical interests in public recognition of equal status. An inclusive moral right to vote accordingly depends on both collective interest in the outcomes of democratic institutions and on individual interest in equal recognition.

Introduction: A Long Struggle -- The Call for Change (1789-1860) -- Wins and Losses (1861-1908): The Big Truth: Who Opposed Women's Suffrage and Why? -- The Movement Gains Momentum (1909-1914) -- Major Victory (1915-Today) -- Timeline -- True Statistics -- Resources/Selected Bibliographies -- Glossary -- Index -- About the Author.

This Article provides the first comprehensive look at state constitutional provisions explicitly granting the right to vote. We hear that the right to vote is "fundamental," the "essence of a democratic society," and "preservative of all rights." But courts and scholars are still searching for a solution to the puzzle of how best to protect voting rights, especially because the U.S. Supreme Court has underenforced the right to vote. The answer, however, is right in front of us: state constitutions. Virtually every state constitution includes direct, explicit language granting the right to vote, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, which mentions voting rights only implicitly. Yet those seeking to protect the right to vote have largely ignored the force of state constitutions, particularly because many state courts "lockstep" their state constitutional voting provisions with the narrow protection the U.S. Supreme Court has afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This mode of analysis curtails the broader explicit grant of voting rights in state constitutions. This Article explains why the lockstepping approach is wrong for the right to vote and advocates for courts to use a state-focused methodology when construing their state constitutions. It does so through the lens of recent voter ID litigation, showing how the outcome of state constitutional challenges to voter ID laws turns on whether the reviewing state court faithfully and independently applies the state constitutional provision conferring voting rights. The textual and substantive differences between U.S. and state constitutional voting-rights protections requires a state-focused methodology for state constitutional clauses that grant the right to vote. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution points directly to state qualification rules to determine voter eligibility. State constitutions explicitly confer voting rights, while the U.S. Constitution merely implies the right to vote through negative language. In ...

Institutions and the Norms That Help Maintain Stability -- The Multiple Laboratories of Democracy -- The Federal Part of the Institution -- Acquiring Voting Rights -- Exercising the Right to Vote -- Finding the Time and Place to Vote -- Counting the Votes -- Choosing Voters: Redistricting and Re-Apportionment -- Implications of Institutionalism for Democracy

In the context of the 2000 US presidential election, it is noted that the right to vote is not fundamentally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The history of voting rights is both complex & surprising, & a careful study of this history reveals factors that may come as a surprise to many Americans. (1) The Founding Fathers did not include a federal standard that ensured the right to vote in the Constitution. Instead, state law dictated suffrage. (2) Suffrage was not nationalized until the early 1970s, much later than most people believe. (3) Those serving prison terms are disenfranchised in 47 states, an important consideration in close elections. This road to voting rights helped pave the way for the election of 2000, a race in which the issue of ethnicity & campaign finance played an important role not only in FL but throughout the nation. In looking back on the election, it is apparent that reforms are needed. Disenfranchisement practices continue, while the wealthy of both parties maintain a disproportionate hold on the US political system. Though necessary, significant reforms remain unlikely. K. A. Larsen

Lawyers in voting discrimination cases are fond of quoting Justice Frankfurter's dictum that "the [Fifteenth] Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination."' Unfortunately for historical accuracy and for the health of our society, this statement simply has been false for most of the century since the passage of that amendment. In the past fifteen years, however, a change has begun, and the right to vote without discrimination has gained substance. This Article is an effort to describe today's law of voting discrimination, and how that law developed. Because the present state of this area is so largely a product of its tortured history, it will be necessary to begin with a history of black enfranchisement. This history revolves chiefly about three major,short periods of dramatic change, separated by years of generally downward drift. For each of these periods, this Article will examine the varying response of the federal branches to the unceasing disfranchisement efforts of the states.