314
Kansas supreme court rules state constitution does not provide the right to vote
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
314 points (98.2% liked)
News
23310 readers
3380 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That line isn't about voting, it's about being qualified to be a Elector, sent to the Electoral College to actually elect the next US President. So, not exactly textual evidence that there is a right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution. The next couple of sections also kinda work against a universal right to vote in Kansas:
This shows that the legislature does have some power to remove a person's ability to vote under Kansas law. Granted, there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote, so long as it's not been removed. But then we get to:
That, right there, is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting for this law. The legislature has the power to provide "proper proofs" for the right to vote. So, it would seem that the Kansas Constitution is setting the legislature up to gatekeep voting, based on "proper proofs". That could well be the signature verification.
This looks like one of those cases where being a country of written laws can lead to weird outcomes. Yes, the right to vote should be universal. But, if the law, as written, doesn't say that, then that's not really the law.
Regardless of how the state constitution does their wordsmithing, don't the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments of the federal constitution, in combination, essentially grant all Kansans over 18 the right to vote (aside from restricted groups)? I could possibly see the state blocking certain people from state and local elections, or anything within their jurisdiction, but wouldn't the state have zero say about federal elections?
I was just focusing on what was there in the Kansas Constitution; but, lets walk through it:
We'll ignore Section 2, as it doesn't seem useful here (same for other amendments below). So, you have a right to vote that cannot be limited by "race, color or previous condition of servitude". That last bit meaning slavery. So, it kinda does seem to imply a universal right to vote. But again, this leaves open the possibility that the US Government (USG) and States do have the power to limit it otherwise. As a ridiculous example, it seems that this Amendment leaves open the possibility that the State could limit the right to vote for left handed people.
Pretty much exactly as above, but extending the protections to "sex".
Continuing to extend the limits on USG/State powers. This time, it outlaws poll taxes.
And now we've extended the prohibition on limiting voting due to age.
There is a through-line on all of these which amounts to "The USG/State cannot limit the right to vote in these specific cases". At the same time, they all leave open the possibility that the right to vote can be limited by the USG/States, so long as the reason isn't one of the protected classes. The text of the US Constitution itself is pretty silent on the issue.
That kinda tosses the whole thing to the States to figure out. Though, that has been modified by Federal Law a few times.
This is the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the US Constitution, and it's been a useful "catch all" to further push the rights of the people. If a universal right to vote exists in the US Constitution, it's probably here. But, that's going to fall to judicial review. Which, for the moment, the Kansas court seems to have rejected.
Given all those references to the right to vote, does that not obviously show that there is a right to vote? And that the right shall not be denied for those reasons? Sort of an "exception proves the rule" sort of thing.
It does seem that there is an implicit right to vote, but not an explicit one. Which is why I mentioned the Privileges and Immunities clause, if there is a Constitutional right to vote, it likely derives from there. But, being implicit, rather than explicit, means that it falls to judicial review to codify it. It's also not as solidly guaranteed. Unlike say, the right to assemble, there is no specific text you can point to and say, "this bit of text, right here, says it." So, it wouldn't be surprising to see any such decision overturned later on (see: Dobbs decision).
Gotcha, thank you for your detailed response. So what I'm gathering here is that, essentially, the universal right to vote has typically been pushed under the Privileges and Immunities clause, but only because there isn't exactly any specific line or section in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees it, and also that the P&I clause was utilized via the benevolence (for lack of a better word) for the people by lawmakers and the judiciary?
While it looks like I pulled the wrong sentence out of the section by forgetting electors was for the electoral college, there are a couple things to add.
The US constitution does include the right to vote and the state constitution builds upon that. The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place. So saying the state constitution doesn't repeat a right from the US constitution is stupid on its face.
Second, the nitpicking sbout how to verify someone would still be an issue even if voting was explicitly stated as a right in the state constitution since it is a limitation on that right like age.
Kind of, but also kind of not. I replied to another commenter on that, I'll point you there.
I agree that, and event directly stated in my previous post, exactly that:
Unfortunately, an implicit assumption is not the same as an explicitly enumerated right. It's a fine distinction, but can be a big pain in the arse. In theory, US Citizens have a lot of unenumerated rights, via the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, as it's left open to interpretation, it ends up amounting to almost nothing.
Without looking deeper I all but guarantee that these are relics of Jim Crow or earlier. They are a disgusting stain on our country, but not nearly as disgusting as those who would try to leverage them in the modern era for the sake of dragging us back to that era.
Acting like we're some codified law savages decended from the Roman Republic like the Fr*nch.
As opposed to?
While being a country of written laws does have it's pitfalls, it also means that we have something to go back to and agree on. There is a reason that political bodies have been codifying laws since the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. The alternatives usually break down to some sort of "guy with the biggest stick, at the moment, makes the law". No thanks, I'll stick with being a "codified law savage".
I was making a joke that our law is based on precedent (common law), compared to law based on the German or Napoleonic codes which decend from Rome
So that explains the wooshing sound.
Sorry, I guess I've been primed by one too many comments where folks seem to want to ignore the laws as written when they are inconvenient to the outcome they want.